Judge Massei Sentencing Report: English Translation     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher 

Last visit was: Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:31 pm It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:31 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



 [ 2985 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Kermit wrote:

Quote:
BTW, all newbies out there!! Don't be afraid to post, don't be afraid of asking for information on the facts. We all made our first post. It's easy. People who come to talk about the issues with an open mind and heart fit in here really well, whatever your point-of-view.


I second that emotion! A board like this does not require personal disclosures but does require trust. Not blind faith, trust. Agendas need to be left at the door. They get in the way of real thinking!

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm
Posts: 278
Location: Switzerland/Germany
Quote:
I think a very prudent and thrifty student might well survive on 872 Euros a month (once the rent was taken care of).
But somehow I don't see (even in a "vision" ) AK as prudent or thrifty -- what about drinks, hash, clothes, and so on?

A very prudent and thrifty student? You've got to be kidding me! 872€ after rent is hell of a lot of money in europe. Just imagine you would spend 1250 Dollar as a student every month just for food, clothes and pleasure. Was she in Disneyland?




dis-)) 872€, i wish i'd have 872€ wa-))


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Speaking of TJMK (True Justice for Meredith Kercher), Nicki has a new post up. The comment that follows is quite interesting.

Quote:
Here is the reported response of Meredith’s roommate Filomena to Knox on the stand. The translation is by Kermit.

It is from the major Italian paper Corriere in a report by the tough journalist Fiorenza Sarzanini who wrote a book on the case.

*******

She (Amanda) doesn’t know that amongst the public is sitting Filomena Romanelli, her flatmate, the young woman who had agreed to lease to her one of the rooms of the cottage in Via della Pergola. They were friends, Amanda in fact called Filomena on the morning of 2 November 2007 when “I returned home and found the door open and everything seemed very strange because there was blood on the sink, on the bathmat, and Meredith’s room was locked” .

Now, however, they appear distant, completely separate from each other. Filomena appears annoyed to hear the American reconstruct her movements of that day and above all her alibi for the previous night, that of the crime. “She’s incoherent, she continues to change versions,” bursts out Filomena, convinced that nobody has recognized her.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Allsburg wrote:
Yikes. Just read Brian's posts. For the first time I think they might get off. If the influence extends that far, the verdict may already be a foregone conclusion


Oh, I don't know about that.

Italy has a fiercely independent judiciary. They are completely free of government control.

It is a totally different system to the US. The judiciary are all salaried career people. None of them are political appointees.

To have an appreciation of the situation in Italy which is well understood in the rest of Europe it's best described as a permanent war between the judicary and politicians/organised crime.

Nearly half the mps's in parliament have dubious connections, past records, convictions etc. etc.

The Italian PM Silvio Berlusconia just had to pass a special law to keep himself from being found guilty of bribery in a recent case.

He paid mucho money to an English accountant to falsify his financial records.

The accountant has just been found guilty of accepting the money form Berlusconi and sentenced to 4 1/2 years.

But the court were prevented from reaching a verdict against Belusconi because a special law was passed to prevent it happening.

The Italian political system has obviously decreed that the mucho money which found it's way into an English accountants bank account fell out of thin air.

Personally I back Mignini and the Italian judicary against Sollecito.

Because of the international aspect of this crime the politicians contacted by Sollecito all ran a mile
when Mignini "leaked" their conversations contained in phone taps.

He and his friends know well how to play rough against corruption.


Last edited by Brian S. on Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Finn wrote:
Quote:
Kermit wrote:
From Corriere della Sera - AMANDA's FORGOTTEN CALL

Amanda: "Suppongo di aver chia­mato perché ero andata in ca­sa e avevo trovato la porta aperta, ma non ricordo que­sta telefonata"
Rough translation: "I suppose I had called, because I was at home and had found the door open, but I don't remember that phone call"
That's a strange one, Kermit. I don't think Charlie held back information, by the way - I think I've seen the same phone records that he has, and there's no mention of a call to Edda earlier than 12:47:23. (The phone records date back to just after midnight on November 1.) So I can't quite figure out what call Mignini is referring to - does this mean she used a different phone to call on this earlier occasion?


I agree with Finn. We have the same phone records that are in Charlie's possession, and they do not show a call from Amanda to her mother or vice versa prior to 12:47 (Perugia time). These phone records show calls made up until cut-off on the evening of Nov 1 (SMS to Patrick at 20:35:48) and the first call made on Nov 2, at 12:07:12, to Meredith's English cell phone. The next call, at 12:08:44, was to Filomena. Filomena then calls AK 3 times -- at 12:12, 12:20 and 12:34.


Well it is definitely a mystery (or as another poster would say, a REVELATION!!).
It's a mystery, because I understand that the cottage didn't have a land-line (each girl had her own mobile or mobiles)(although, it's not clear how their Internet connectivity worked ... by using a wireless signal from the boys downstairs?)
But you, Finn and Charlie have seen the mobile phone records.
And Amanda seems to be saying in her reply that that call was made from the cottage ("... I was at home and had found the door open, but I don't remember that phone call")

So, what phone (fixed or mobile) did she use to make the call. And, really, was it from the cottage?
One possibility is that her computer was there, maybe it was some sort of Skype-call patched into the USA phone grid (there are lots of services of that sort, which save lots of money on international calls).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:12 pm
Posts: 29
Location: Canada
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Speaking of TJMK (True Justice for Meredith Kercher), Nicki has a new post up. The comment that follows is quite interesting.

Quote:
Here is the reported response of Meredith’s roommate Filomena to Knox on the stand. The translation is by Kermit.

It is from the major Italian paper Corriere in a report by the tough journalist Fiorenza Sarzanini who wrote a book on the case.

*******

She (Amanda) doesn’t know that amongst the public is sitting Filomena Romanelli, her flatmate, the young woman who had agreed to lease to her one of the rooms of the cottage in Via della Pergola. They were friends, Amanda in fact called Filomena on the morning of 2 November 2007 when “I returned home and found the door open and everything seemed very strange because there was blood on the sink, on the bathmat, and Meredith’s room was locked” .

Now, however, they appear distant, completely separate from each other. Filomena appears annoyed to hear the American reconstruct her movements of that day and above all her alibi for the previous night, that of the crime. “She’s incoherent, she continues to change versions,” bursts out Filomena, convinced that nobody has recognized her.


WOW! was there anything further, a reaction from the court?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm
Posts: 252
Question:

I seem to remember that one of the charges was theft, but the prosecution has now finished presenting their case, and I haven't seen anything relating to the missing money.

Have I missed something? Was this ever discussed at the trial? Has this been dropped by the prosecution?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: What type of internet access?
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Kermit wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Finn wrote:
Quote:
Kermit wrote:
From Corriere della Sera - AMANDA's FORGOTTEN CALL

Amanda: "Suppongo di aver chia­mato perché ero andata in ca­sa e avevo trovato la porta aperta, ma non ricordo que­sta telefonata"
Rough translation: "I suppose I had called, because I was at home and had found the door open, but I don't remember that phone call"
That's a strange one, Kermit. I don't think Charlie held back information, by the way - I think I've seen the same phone records that he has, and there's no mention of a call to Edda earlier than 12:47:23. (The phone records date back to just after midnight on November 1.) So I can't quite figure out what call Mignini is referring to - does this mean she used a different phone to call on this earlier occasion?


I agree with Finn. We have the same phone records that are in Charlie's possession, and they do not show a call from Amanda to her mother or vice versa prior to 12:47 (Perugia time). These phone records show calls made up until cut-off on the evening of Nov 1 (SMS to Patrick at 20:35:48) and the first call made on Nov 2, at 12:07:12, to Meredith's English cell phone. The next call, at 12:08:44, was to Filomena. Filomena then calls AK 3 times -- at 12:12, 12:20 and 12:34.


Well it is definitely a mystery (or as another poster would say, a REVELATION!!).
It's a mystery, because I understand that the cottage didn't have a land-line (each girl had her own mobile or mobiles).
But you, Finn and Charlie have seen the mobile phone records.
And Amanda seems to be saying in her reply that that call was made from the cottage ("... I was at home and had found the door open, but I don't remember that phone call")

So, what phone (fixed or mobile) did she use to make the call. And, really, was it from the cottage?
One possibility is that her computer was there, maybe it was some sort of Skype-call patched into the USA phone grid (there are lots of services of that sort, which save lots of money on international calls).


Good point about the Skype Kermit. We know from DJ's interview with Candace Dempsey that Knox spent quite a bit of time and money Skyping him - why not others? It's an economical way to stay in touch.

From Knox's MySpace page in our "In their own words" section:

" the house has a kitchen, 2 bathrooms, and four bathrooms. not to mention a washing maschine, and internet access. not to mention, she owns two guitars and wants to play with me."

So just which type of "internet access"? We know Sollecito's apartment 5 minutes away had a connection through a landline. A couple months ago we saw that Broadband was being installed throughout Perugia.

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

In general and in my opinion, the timeline should not contain as fact any information not taken from an official source or reported from a reliable source as testimony from the trial. If a statement like this is made on the timeline, it must be sourced. Just sayin'.


I agree. Sourced would really help.
( a relaible source would be? Idea-..someone whose testimony was not "disallowed"..that could be one prerequisite)

many posters think AK and RS are guilty somehow for not carrying around a "stopwatch".
Maybe I'm missing the point again?

Don't get em wrong, I agree a cellphone log activity placing someone in a location, or contradicting their alibi they were sleeping is huge evidence..... one hour? or calling their parents in the morning? people do many things that may seem strange to you and me, and it doesn't mean their a murderer.
I find it odd the entire courtroom can have a laugh here and there in the middle of Merediths Murder case, does this mean they are ALL demented?

"stopwatch" details-
Then defense will just answer away all of that "stopwatch" banter, yes?
As AK did this weekend, stating she doesn't keep time and dates well.
All her answers will be vague- thats not an admission of guilt to murder.
We can believe it or not.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 377
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008120524_amandaknox17m0.html


Quote:
Instead, Mellas, an elementary-school math teacher in Highline, was awakened before dawn on Nov. 2 by a call from Knox in Italy. "She said, 'Mom, I'm OK, I'm home, but I think somebody might have been in my house,' " Mellas said.

Knox told her mother she'd just come home after spending the night with Sollecito to find the front door ajar, droplets of blood in her bathroom, feces in a toilet, and the bedroom door of housemate Meredith Kercher locked. Knox took a shower, then left to fetch Sollecito, who then called police.

Amanda called again a few hours later, this time with panic her voice. "They found a body in Meredith's room," Mellas, 46, remembers her daughter saying. "I gotta go, the police want to talk with me."



I think we must of asked CMellas a million questions about these phone calls. Remember how sketchy he was about the details such as the time? He never gave us a clear answer on the most simple of all questions. What time was the first call?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
jfk1191 wrote:
many posters think AK and RS are guilty somehow for not carrying around a "stopwatch".
Maybe I'm missing the point again?


Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito not only gave conflicting witness statements, but also gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder.

Bear in mind that Knox and Sollecito lied from the very beginning before they were suspects.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What type of internet access?
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Tara wrote:
We know from DJ's interview with Candace Dempsey that Knox spent quite a bit of time and money Skyping him - why not others? It's an economical way to stay in touch.

From Knox's MySpace page in our "In their own words" section:

" the house has a kitchen, 2 bathrooms, and four bathrooms. not to mention a washing maschine, and internet access. not to mention, she owns two guitars and wants to play with me."

So just which type of "internet access"? We know Sollecito's apartment 5 minutes away had a connection through a landline. A couple months ago we saw that Broadband was being installed throughout Perugia.


By Nov.2 a.m. Sollecito's computer was in use again (our interest in his computer was principally focussed towards the evening and night of 1-2 Nov. 2007. She could have done a Skype call from his place (although I would have thought that the computer forensic people would have taken note of that .... unless they were given specific instructions to find the last activity in the evening of 1 Nov. and the first activity on 2 Nov., and not worry about what activity there was before or after.

Also, there are a number of Internet cafés within 5 minutes walking of the cottage of RS's place.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 377
I also wanted to add, did Amanda make that first call to her mother BEFORE or AFTER the infamous shower?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: FRANK'S
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Michael wrote:
New article on FRANK'S

<snip> But was the side judge Beatrice Cristiani who asked a really uncomfortable question, women are more motivated. Okay the shower, but why did Amanda take a shampoo in the morning when the day before she had one? It's simple for Amanda, Every day I wash my hair.
Highly suspicious habits... <snip>

please tell me he is seriously joking.....
everyone I know does this in the US? shampoo everyday. some might skip a day, thats about it.

this question is from a judge?!!!! yikes... what a strange question, uneducated of a US kids habits, I guess.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm
Posts: 139
Amanda's forgotten call

The thing the prosecution really emphasised was the 10th Nov bugged conversation between Knox and her mother in the jail. The mother expressed suprise that she'd been called at that unearthly hour 'when nothing had happened yet'. The other thing is that it was RS who later told Knox to phone Filomena etc.

Doesn't make sense, she is so concerned about the open door etc. she calls her mother in the middle of the night, but later needs RS to prompt her to call her flatmates?

I must wade back through the audios to get te exact time of the call, can't remember whether it was stated, I'm sure there was no mention of the cell it was traced to, but that would be good to know?

Next week I'll try to keep a log of the audio time for each point, but it is hard work just keeping up with the notes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
petafly wrote:
Quote:
I think a very prudent and thrifty student might well survive on 872 Euros a month (once the rent was taken care of).
But somehow I don't see (even in a "vision" ) AK as prudent or thrifty -- what about drinks, hash, clothes, and so on?

A very prudent and thrifty student? You've got to be kidding me! 872€ after rent is hell of a lot of money in europe. Just imagine you would spend 1250 Dollar as a student every month just for food, clothes and pleasure. Was she in Disneyland?




dis-)) 872€, i wish i'd have 872€ wa-))


Good point. *thinks back to my student days of ramen noodles, a car so old and rusty I needed a garden hose and plastic funnel to try and fill the gas tank, and secondhand clothes gratefully accepted from my well-off older cousin* :mrgreen: (Actually, I still drive a 23-year-old car, to the endless amusement of my friends, family members, and coworkers. But hey, it's by choice - it's a sturdy old Volvo and it's got cache!) ;) (Okay - I cannot tell a lie. I also still eat ramen noodles.) :lol:

BTW Petafly, your use of the "wailing" emoticon never fails to make me laugh. :lol:

Anyway, it *does* seem like Amanda ran through a lot of money in a short period of time. Lots of expensive drugs, perhaps? I dunno.

411: The Dancing Itos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for that trip down memory lane!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
jfk1191 wrote:
many posters think AK and RS are guilty somehow for not carrying around a "stopwatch".
Maybe I'm missing the point again?

calling their parents in the morning? people do many things that may seem strange to you and me, and it doesn't mean their a murderer.

I find it odd the entire courtroom can have a laugh here and there in the middle of Merediths Murder case, does this mean they are ALL demented?


Some of the best jokes I've heard and laughed at have been in wakes after someone has died. I'm sorry for your discomfort at the different moments of the trial. I think that it is not a problem as long as none of the lighter moments have been disrespectful to Meredith (which I don't believe has been the case).

I don't think that anyone believes AK and RS are guilty for not carrying around a stopwatch or knowing the exact time of day.

However, when people get the order of significant events wrong, especially when they need that wrong order to support their alibi, then you may suspect that something is awry.

At this point, I think that only the suspects and their legal teams are trying to suggest that the Telecommunications Police arrived after the calls were made to 112. The content of the calls to 112 make it evident that there aren't any law officers already on the scene.

And that is a problem. It doesn't matter if there are 5 minutes more or less between events (as long as you don't have a ridiculous Benny Hill scene of impossible activity). And, as we have seen, AK and RS don't have to carry stopwatches, because there are other systems which record the times:
  • their mobile phones
  • the carpark camera (which may be off 10 minutes)
  • the Internet data records
  • the tow-truck operator and his service records
  • the 112 switchboard
  • etc.
Tell AK and RS to leave their watches at home, all they have to do is to tell alibis which can match the rest of the data.

Now, if Amanda has remembered and described a multitude of calls made and received from around the time of discovery, then it's strange if she can't remember a call made to her mother from around the time when supposedly she was showering and doing the bathmat boogie.


Last edited by Kermit on Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Knox's friends graduate without her
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Here we have some interviews from some of Knox's friends attending the UW graduation yesterday without her. wa-))

A quick glance at the comments section tells me that there are folks in Seattle that were not fooled by her appearance on the stand this weekend, or news reporter Roberta Romero's (of the same NBC KING5 station) earlier report where she stated the prosecution had "failed" and Amanda Knox came off as an "all American girl instead of a cold blooded killer".

Both reports here:

UW GRADUATION DAY

ROBERTA ROMERO VIDEO REPORT

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
many posters think AK and RS are guilty somehow for not carrying around a "stopwatch".
Maybe I'm missing the point again?


Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito not only gave conflicting witness statements, but also gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder.

Bear in mind that Knox and Sollecito lied from the very beginning before they were suspects.


"completely different" is a kind understatement.
I remain open minded, but reading in Raffaele's own words posted here, letters to his Dad...not only did the storys change during the interrogation time frame, they changed greatly.

being liars or not, it seems they have this last chance to tell their "final" story.
They, for the first time, can tell it, in the public court, being filmed.
Not thru secret interrogation rooms with no cameras, not "leaked" memoirs, there's no more chances to make up any accusations of any kind in front of that many people in this court room. I could understand voices being shaky for an introvert, but AK and RS won't have any more chances to exaggerate the story.

I'm so curious whether RS will uphold AK's alibi-testimony. Has he confirmed already?
If not, when will Raffaele give his final account of Nov 1?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm
Posts: 139
Paula,

Knox's 'I know, I was there' statement

Throughout the 2 days of testimony, the defense raised dozens of 'myths' about the case with knox, looking to dispel them, as well as potentially damaging issues, even if true (i.e. got in before the prosecution). I think they raised this 'famous' one.

This one is about a bugged jail conversation Knox had with her mother (10th or 17th Nov I think). They talk about the finding of the famous double DNA knife at RS's flat. Like the 'see you later' sms message, this arose from her saying she knew about it 'because I was there' ....perche ero li ... She really just had to say where was 'there', the murder scene or RS's flat. She, of course responded RS's .... that was that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MYSTERY CALL
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
kevin wrote:
Amanda's forgotten call ... The thing the prosecution really emphasised was the 10th Nov bugged conversation between Knox and her mother in the jail. The mother expressed suprise that she'd been called at that unearthly hour 'when nothing had happened yet'....
Doesn't make sense, she is so concerned about the open door etc. she calls her mother in the middle of the night, but later needs RS to prompt her to call her flatmates?
... Next week I'll try to keep a log of the audio time for each point, but it is hard work just keeping up with the notes.


Thanks Kevin for looking into that.

Ah, I see, the "call record" is Edda's prison conversation with Amanda. What I find strange is that Edda makes reference to "when nothing had happened yet" ... what would the "thing" be that would happen?
  • the arrival of the Telecommunications Police
  • the arrival of Filomena and her friends
  • the breaking down of the door
  • the aftermath of the breaking down of the door
  • something else?
Would Edda be surprised that Amanda would have called her in the middle of the night because of a break-in? ("you woke me up only to tell me you had a break-in?")

Or was there another call: "Mom I'm confused, I want to go shopping with you" .... Obviously (??) not.

If it is true that there is some sort of call to Edda when Amanda was in the cottage the first time, then how could Amanda - after a worried call to her mother (the one that Edda has described in so many interviews? where she tells Amanda to call the police after seeing blood and faeces in the house) - stroll to Raffaele's with the mop, have breakfast, clean the broken pipe, and only then tell her erstwhile boyfriend of a few days about the "break-in"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Kermit wrote:

I don't think that anyone believes AK and RS are guilty for not carrying around a stopwatch or knowing the exact time of day.

However, when people get the order of significant events wrong, especially when they need that wrong order to support their alibi, then you may suspect that something is awry.

.


yes, so true... significant events. I can believe that. Even a person who doesn't "do time and dates" should be able to recall somethings. example.....Like did you do laundry or not? Did you load the laundry machine Nov 2...?

laughing in murder trials is no different than doing cartwheels and stretches, imo...I've known girls that do that stuff too.
its not something I would do, but its not a sign of murder. and I agree it is abnormal behavior...whatever that means?
what is normal behavior then?
Jeffry Dahmer thought eating people was alright...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
jfk1191 wrote:
I'm so curious whether RS will uphold AK's alibi-testimony. Has he confirmed already? If not, when will Raffaele give his final account of Nov 1?


Raffaele Sollecito has chosen not to testify at the trial, so he will not be giving a final account. He stopped providing Amanda Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007. He claimed that she went out that evening and came back at about 1.00am.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:52 am
Posts: 17
Kermit wrote: "It's a mystery, because I understand that the cottage didn't have a land-line (each girl had her own mobile or mobiles)(although, it's not clear how their Internet connectivity worked ... by using a wireless signal from the boys downstairs?)"

I clearly remember seeing a land line phone on the wall of the cottage, looked like it was close to the entrance, in a series of photos posted sometime last month--I can't find the link, but there were over 100 pictures of the crime scene and the investigation and the people involved, some previously published, others not. They all had the name "Iberfoto" screened across them to prevent copying. I have used the search feature but can't pull up the post. Anyone remember whose post it was?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: RAFFAELE IS KEEPING HIS CARDS CLOSE TO HIS CHEST
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
jfk1191 wrote:
being liars or not, it seems they have this last chance to tell their "final" story.
They, for the first time, can tell it, in the public court, being filmed.
....
I'm so curious whether RS will uphold AK's alibi-testimony. Has he confirmed already?
If not, when will Raffaele give his final account of Nov 1?


Good question.

If Raffaele really wanted to do some Headline grabbing theatrics, when Amanda had finished her declaration yesterday, he could have stood up and requested to make the following spontaneous statement:

"Your honour, I wish to state that everything that Amanda has said yesterday and today is true as far as I am concerned. I confirm her alibi that she was with me all night."

But ........... he didn't. He maintained his Poker Face, and Bongiorno & Co. are doing their best to ensure that he doesn't uselessly waste any of their legal options by pinning his fate to Amanda. While unfortunately it's not very romantic and wouldn't form the story line of Titanic II - it is probably the best legal strategy (if not moral) for the guy at this point in the process.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
Kermit wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Finn wrote:
Quote:
Kermit wrote:
From Corriere della Sera - AMANDA's FORGOTTEN CALL

Amanda: "Suppongo di aver chia­mato perché ero andata in ca­sa e avevo trovato la porta aperta, ma non ricordo que­sta telefonata"
Rough translation: "I suppose I had called, because I was at home and had found the door open, but I don't remember that phone call"
That's a strange one, Kermit. I don't think Charlie held back information, by the way - I think I've seen the same phone records that he has, and there's no mention of a call to Edda earlier than 12:47:23. (The phone records date back to just after midnight on November 1.) So I can't quite figure out what call Mignini is referring to - does this mean she used a different phone to call on this earlier occasion?


I agree with Finn. We have the same phone records that are in Charlie's possession, and they do not show a call from Amanda to her mother or vice versa prior to 12:47 (Perugia time). These phone records show calls made up until cut-off on the evening of Nov 1 (SMS to Patrick at 20:35:48) and the first call made on Nov 2, at 12:07:12, to Meredith's English cell phone. The next call, at 12:08:44, was to Filomena. Filomena then calls AK 3 times -- at 12:12, 12:20 and 12:34.


Well it is definitely a mystery (or as another poster would say, a REVELATION!!).
It's a mystery, because I understand that the cottage didn't have a land-line (each girl had her own mobile or mobiles)(although, it's not clear how their Internet connectivity worked ... by using a wireless signal from the boys downstairs?)
But you, Finn and Charlie have seen the mobile phone records.
And Amanda seems to be saying in her reply that that call was made from the cottage ("... I was at home and had found the door open, but I don't remember that phone call")

So, what phone (fixed or mobile) did she use to make the call. And, really, was it from the cottage?
One possibility is that her computer was there, maybe it was some sort of Skype-call patched into the USA phone grid (there are lots of services of that sort, which save lots of money on international calls).


For whatever Frank's opinion is worth these days, it's clear from his latest post that he thinks Comodi was talking about the 1247 call. As Frank puts it: Actually I should remind Mrs Comodi that the call to the Edda was at 12:47 not at 12:00, as she said. So, even if the door wasn't open yet, Amanda was already panicking for the missing of Meredith, the robbery and everything else.

I'm not surprised that this was a difficult line of questioning for Amanda because - as I've said several times before - it seems bizarre that Amanda doesn't mention this phone call in her email. Her email mentions no phone calls at all, but rather a lot of running about knocking on doors and checking windows, culminating in Raffaele trying to kick down the door whereupon they themselves make a decision to call the cops.

But Edda Mellas's account has herself receiving a call from Amanda in the middle of the night. She asks whether Amanda has called the police, Amanda says no, and Edda says, so hang up and call them. The phone records show Raffaele calls his sister directly after that phone call finishes.

(And of course cynical people believe that the police are actually in the house at the point when this phone call is being made. And these cynical people have got a lot of witness testimony, CCTV footage and police records to back them up.)

But even forgetting the cynical people for a moment, that phone call is a big problem for Amanda. Contrary to what she testified at the weekend, Amanda was NOT on the phone to Filomena when Raffaele was talking to his sister. (Source: the phone records.) And she HAD just spoken to her mother just before Raffaele made that call (source: phone records) and her mother HAD just told her to call the police. (Source: Edda Mellas.) So Amanda's testimony just plainly doesn't make sense, when judged against unarguable evidence like the phone records, combined with the testimony of her own mother.

That's a big problem, right there.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
jfk1191 wrote:

Quote:
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
many posters think AK and RS are guilty somehow for not carrying around a "stopwatch".
Maybe I'm missing the point again?


Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito not only gave conflicting witness statements, but also gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder.

Bear in mind that Knox and Sollecito lied from the very beginning before they were suspects.


"completely different" is a kind understatement.
I remain open minded, but reading in Raffaele's own words posted here, letters to his Dad...not only did the storys change during the interrogation time frame, they changed greatly.

being liars or not, it seems they have this last chance to tell their "final" story.
They, for the first time, can tell it, in the public court, being filmed.
Not thru secret interrogation rooms with no cameras, not "leaked" memoirs, there's no more chances to make up any accusations of any kind in front of that many people in this court room. I could understand voices being shaky for an introvert, but AK and RS won't have any more chances to exaggerate the story.

I'm so curious whether RS will uphold AK's alibi-testimony. Has he confirmed already?
If not, when will Raffaele give his final account of Nov 1?


Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Raffaele Sollecito will not be testifying. I think you raised this point already, jfk, but I don't think it has been addressed. Do you have information to the contrary (ie, that RS intends to testify)?

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
2catsintheyard wrote:
I clearly remember seeing a land line phone on the wall of the cottage, looked like it was close to the entrance,


Thanks 2cats.

I wouldn't be surprised that there was a landline connection. Since the house over the years would have had a number of owners and renters, for sure there would be a copper wire line (maybe two). It would make sense, especially since the Internet connection (either the girls' own connection, or the girls' riding piggyback on the boys' connection) would likely be an ADSL line, and there are no neighbours close enough to pirate wireless coverage in a reliable way (the reinforced concrete carpark is in the way).

The only thing is that there hasn't been mention of such a line, but it could well be there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
2Catsintheyard,
The phone that you saw by the entrance is the internal phone to communicate with whoever might be at the gate and open it if needed.


Last edited by Jools on Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
2catsintheyardwrote:

Quote:
Kermit wrote: "It's a mystery, because I understand that the cottage didn't have a land-line (each girl had her own mobile or mobiles)(although, it's not clear how their Internet connectivity worked ... by using a wireless signal from the boys downstairs?)"

I clearly remember seeing a land line phone on the wall of the cottage, looked like it was close to the entrance, in a series of photos posted sometime last month--I can't find the link, but there were over 100 pictures of the crime scene and the investigation and the people involved, some previously published, others not. They all had the name "Iberfoto" screened across them to prevent copying. I have used the search feature but can't pull up the post. Anyone remember whose post it was?


Once again, I am happy to stand corrected but I think the phone in question is what we call in French an "interphone", one that opens the gate to the cottage or something. Or perhaps a telephone that was left on the wall by a previous tenant but not actually connected to a phone jack?

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm
Posts: 378
FinnMacCool wrote:
But even forgetting the cynical people for a moment, that phone call is a big problem for Amanda. Contrary to what she testified at the weekend, Amanda was NOT on the phone to Filomena when Raffaele was talking to his sister. (Source: the phone records.) And she HAD just spoken to her mother just before Raffaele made that call (source: phone records) and her mother HAD just told her to call the police. (Source: Edda Mellas.) So Amanda's testimony just plainly doesn't make sense, when judged against unarguable evidence like the phone records, combined with the testimony of her own mother.


She said she thought she was on the phone to Filomena when Raffaele talked to his sister. She got that wrong. It was her mother, not Filomena.
But how can this happen? She had lots of time to study the phone records. Her lawyers should have made sure that she doesn't give yet another version that doesn't add up. Very strange!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
FinnMacCool wrote:
For whatever Frank's opinion is worth these days, it's clear from his latest post that he thinks Comodi was talking about the 1247 call. As Frank puts it: Actually I should remind Mrs Comodi that the call to the Edda was at 12:47 not at 12:00, as she said. So, even if the door wasn't open yet, Amanda was already panicking for the missing of Meredith, the robbery and everything else.

I'm not surprised that this was a difficult line of questioning for Amanda because - as I've said several times before - it seems bizarre that Amanda doesn't mention this phone call in her email.

....


Okay, okay, I'll calm down about the "mystery call". The newspapers have been known to mess up their information...
My only reference on this is the Corriere della Sera:
Amanda e il "non ricordo" sulla telefonata nella notte - La ragazza chiamò la madre due ore prima che la poli­zia scoprisse l’omicidio: a Seattle erano le tre del mattino

Rough translation:
Amanda: "I don't remember" the night-time phone call
The young lady called her mother two hours before the police discover the murder: in Seattle it was 3 in the morning

One explanation for the "3 in the morning" is that Corriere della Sera didn't take into account the 8 hour time difference that week instead of the normal 9 hours. In that case, instead of 3 a.m. Seattle // 11 a.m. Perugia, it would be 4 a.m. Seattle // 12 noon Perugia. And that fits in only slightly more with Frank, if he's right.
-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:

Quote:
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
many posters think AK and RS are guilty somehow for not carrying around a "stopwatch".
Maybe I'm missing the point again?


Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito not only gave conflicting witness statements, but also gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder.

Bear in mind that Knox and Sollecito lied from the very beginning before they were suspects.


"completely different" is a kind understatement.
I remain open minded, but reading in Raffaele's own words posted here, letters to his Dad...not only did the storys change during the interrogation time frame, they changed greatly.

being liars or not, it seems they have this last chance to tell their "final" story.
They, for the first time, can tell it, in the public court, being filmed.
Not thru secret interrogation rooms with no cameras, not "leaked" memoirs, there's no more chances to make up any accusations of any kind in front of that many people in this court room. I could understand voices being shaky for an introvert, but AK and RS won't have any more chances to exaggerate the story.

I'm so curious whether RS will uphold AK's alibi-testimony. Has he confirmed already?
If not, when will Raffaele give his final account of Nov 1?


Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Raffaele Sollecito will not be testifying. I think you raised this point already, jfk, but I don't think it has been addressed. Do you have information to the contrary (ie, that RS intends to testify)?


I only was asking.
Machine mentioned he's not testifying, (Ia ssume thats NOT taking the stand)
so it "appears" (assumption here) he's sticking to the "AK was out all night" alibi.....which would be very confusing on how the jurors would decide on something like that?

Can someone explain the charges/verdict, for A-F, on how the verdicts will be read?
COURT OF ASSIZE, AMANDA AND RAFFAELE'S TRIAL, JUDGE GIANCARLO MASSEI
its a double-0suspect trial, soooo????

can one suspect be guilty of a specific charge and the other not guilty of the same charge?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm
Posts: 139
Amanda's missing call

Commodi said that Edda, in the jail on the 10th Nov, expressed her suprise that Knox was contradicting her own account, which Edda must of heard at this point. Commodi asked what the conversation was about, Knox suppossed it was about the open door. Nothing else was revealed about the conversation in the jail. Presumably that is why Edda is called to testify next week?.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WAITING FOR GODOT
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
FLEngineer wrote:
Its abnormal for real life but a standard plot in hollywood and crime novels. People who watch movies and read crime novels think such things actually happen.


PLEASE!! Don't go away!

Having a motive seemed very important to you yesterday.

Given your rejection of the possibility that Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy somehow ended up in a spiral of bad and then criminal decisions, we asked you for a hypothetical motive (even if it excludes the current 3 suspects) which could fit the crime scene evidence as it stands.

We're still interested to hear your take on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WAITING FOR GODOT
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:50 pm
Posts: 15
Kermit wrote:
PLEASE!! Having a motive seemed very important to you yesterday.


-- And it remains important to me today. I went for a bike ride, apologies if I am not browsing this site at the same time you are.

Kermit wrote:
PLEASE!! Having a motive seemed very important to you yesterday. Given your rejection of the possibility that Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy somehow ended up in a spiral of bad and then criminal decisions, we asked you for a hypothetical motive (even if it excludes the current 3 suspects) which could fit the crime scene evidence as it stands.



That's exactly my point. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution. For the life of me I can't imagne a plausible motive, which is my problem with the prosecution's case for homicide. I think the spiral theory works if there is evidence to support it (such as one of the 3 turning on the others). To this point, I haven't seen it. That doesnt mean we won't get there before the end of the trial.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Kermit wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
For whatever Frank's opinion is worth these days, it's clear from his latest post that he thinks Comodi was talking about the 1247 call. As Frank puts it: Actually I should remind Mrs Comodi that the call to the Edda was at 12:47 not at 12:00, as she said. So, even if the door wasn't open yet, Amanda was already panicking for the missing of Meredith, the robbery and everything else.

I'm not surprised that this was a difficult line of questioning for Amanda because - as I've said several times before - it seems bizarre that Amanda doesn't mention this phone call in her email.

....


Okay, okay, I'll calm down about the "mystery call". The newspapers have been known to mess up their information...
My only reference on this is the Corriere della Sera:
Amanda e il "non ricordo" sulla telefonata nella notte - La ragazza chiamò la madre due ore prima che la poli­zia scoprisse l’omicidio: a Seattle erano le tre del mattino

Rough translation:
Amanda: "I don't remember" the night-time phone call
The young lady called her mother two hours before the police discover the murder: in Seattle it was 3 in the morning

One explanation for the "3 in the morning" is that Corriere della Sera didn't take into account the 8 hour time difference that week instead of the normal 9 hours. In that case, instead of 3 a.m. Seattle // 11 a.m. Perugia, it would be 4 a.m. Seattle // 12 noon Perugia. And that fits in only slightly more with Frank, if he's right.
-

Hi Kermit,

This is from Il Messaggero about the call in the middle of the night to her mother. As I understand it Seattle middle of the night time which was midday Perugia time.
Prosecutor Manuela Comodi:

When you called your mother in the middle of the night, why the call at twelve when still nothing had happened, when nothing was known of the homicide?
"I do not remember this phone call if I did it maybe I had something to say to her, when I went to Raffaele’s I saw there was something strange. But in truth I do not remember why I did it."

Why in prison your mother asks about phonecalls and you do not remember?
"I was confused, I remember only one phone call to my mother ..."

Excuse, you have a lamp with the red button in your room?
'Yes'

Was it still there the night of the crime or in Meredith’s room?
"I don’t remember”
http://tinyurl.com/mtbcw8


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WAITING FOR GODOT
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
FLEngineer wrote:
For the life of me I can't imagne a plausible motive, which is my problem with the prosecution's case for homicide.


But yesterday our discussion was that I (and some others) said that there are murders which occur where there is no apparent motive ... where the human dynamics make bad decisions turn into criminal decisions, without necessarily having a clear motive.

You derided that idea, saying: "You seem to have a "hollywood style" fantasy for what "could" have happened (reminds me of the movie "very bad things" were having sex with a prostitute leads to a series of cover up murders)". That sounds strange, because in fact, in the lack of motive scenario, there isn't much which would interest Hollywood, just some people who shouldn't be together, making bad decisions.

In fact, other posters made comments to you with real life examples of murders which were committed without any clear motive.

So we asked you for an example of a motive in the Perugia case .... I dunno, maybe an unknown intruder who enters to rob, and that crime turns into a homicide (which I personally don't agree with). There you have a motive: theft, and silence the surprised apartment dweller who could somehow identify you.... Can't you come up with something like that on the basis of the evidence, a scenario and motive which satisfies your need to have a motive?

Or is this murder another mystery to add to the list of ships which have disappeared into the Bermuda triangle, condemned to never have an explanation?

(Personally, and very sadfully, I fear that in fact there are some persons out there who would just love for this case to disappear into the Bermuda Triangle)
-


Last edited by Kermit on Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
FL Engineer wrote:

Quote:
Kermit wrote:
PLEASE!! Having a motive seemed very important to you yesterday. Given your rejection of the possibility that Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy somehow ended up in a spiral of bad and then criminal decisions, we asked you for a hypothetical motive (even if it excludes the current 3 suspects) which could fit the crime scene evidence as it stands.



That's exactly my point. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution. For the life of me I can't imagine a plausible motive, which is my problem with the prosecution's case for homicide. I think the spiral theory works if there is evidence to support it (such as one of the 3 turning on the others). To this point, I haven't seen it. That doesnt mean we won't get there before the end of the trial.


We have discussed the issue of motive here extensively. Naturally, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, but this does not necessarily mean that a clear motive has to be proven. There are cases of murder with no apparent motive; there are cases of murder where the body is never located; there are cases of murder where the weapon is never found. And of course, there are cases of murder where no eyewitnesses ever come forward. There are cases of accidental death that are then covered up to look like murder. Either that, or the body is disposed of and the person is said to be missing.

If you are waiting for one of the three to turn on one or both of the others, then you may have to wait for a very long time (as we say in French: tu peux toujours attendre). I think it is also possible, in the absence of a confession or cooperation, that we may never know exactly what happened. That is very sad, but very true. Speaking of confessions, there are lots of murder cases - most in fact - to which no one confesses. And cooperation is not a given either.

Also, you seem to be saying that you have a problem with the prosecutor's case for homicide because there is no apparent motive. But we do have - unfortunately, tragically - a brutally murdered young woman. For me, that trumps motive in terms of determining whether or not we have a homicide on our hands. Given the ultimate cause of death, it would appear that Meredith's attackers or aggressors, as you wish, decided that their best course of action was to finish her off. That sounds very crude, and it pains me to write it, but there you have it. And that is homicide.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: WAITING FOR GODOT
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
FLEngineer wrote:
For the life of me I can't imagne a plausible motive


Dang!!! That was a fast visit! He got away again!

-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm
Posts: 231
Location: US
Ah Jools. The lamp! Is this the first mention?

Thanks everyone for translations. This weekend has been interesting. Looks like she has really tripped herself up in many ways. Not that surprising with so many different stories, versions, but still nice to see the big picture coming closer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Jools wrote:
This is from Il Messaggero about the call in the middle of the night to her mother. As I understand it Seattle middle of the night time which was midday Perugia time.
Prosecutor Manuela Comodi:

When you called your mother in the middle of the night, why the call at twelve when still nothing had happened, when nothing was known of the homicide?
"I do not remember this phone call if I did it maybe I had something to say to her, when I went to Raffaele’s I saw there was something strange. But in truth I do not remember why I did it."

Why in prison your mother asks about phonecalls and you do not remember?
"I was confused, I remember only one phone call to my mother ..."

Excuse, you have a lamp with the red button in your room?
'Yes'

Was it still there the night of the crime or in Meredith’s room?
"I don’t remember
http://tinyurl.com/mtbcw8


Thanks Jools. The phone call to Edda seems to be the 12:47 call.

It sounds like "I don't remember" is going to be La Canción del Verano.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Kermit wrote:
cindy wrote:
im not new to this case, but i have a newbieish question :) does anyone know what amanda´s mom will be testifying on as a witness? the phone calls? or the recorded conversations in the prison? if she lies and it is proven later, will they procecute her?


I believe that Edda will be testifying as a prosecution witness. That said, all lawyers will be able to question her. We can assume that one of the focus points will be the calls that Amanda made to her mother on 2 November 2007, perhaps some character things (tell us about your reaction to Amanda's "parking fine" party). However, I think they can ask her about anything related to the case.

As a witness, she is not permitted to lie, it would be a criminal offense. She probably won't want to lie because:
  • it's wrong and unlawful
  • it could backfire, if Mignini has some card up his sleeve, like the new "first" phone call to Edda that the prosecutor asked Amanda about, at least an hour, maybe two before the up-until-now first call at 12:47. Amanda had to go to the "I can't remember that call" reply, which is a little unbelievable if she remembers all the calls to Filomena and the others, yet can't remember the very very first call to Edda.
  • perjury could prevent Edda from visiting Amanda in prison, should Amanda be found guilty. That would be hard for a mother to handle over the next 20 years or so.
============================

BTW, all newbies out there!! Don't be afraid to post, don't be afraid of asking for information on the facts. We all made our first post. It's easy. People who come to talk about the issues with an open mind and heart fit in here really well, whatever your point-of-view.


Yes, Edda's been called by Patrick, so she isn't a defence witness. This is also why it's always been Curt, Chris or the aunt doing duty at the court and never Edda...she can't go to the court until she's been called by Patrick's lawyers and has given her testimony.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:12 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Jumpy wrote:
Ah Jools. The lamp! Is this the first mention?

Thanks everyone for translations. This weekend has been interesting. Looks like she has really tripped herself up in many ways. Not that surprising with so many different stories, versions, but still nice to see the big picture coming closer.


Hi Jumpy. Yes, that's the first mention of the lamp during the trial and it was really important Mignini got it in there and drew attention to it. You see, the lamp in itself isn't hard evidence, but it is a 'clue'. It is one of the major factors that suggested everything in the cottage wasn't as it seemed...or was 'meant' to seem. There is a lot of...'artificiallity' there and of a kind that cannot be blamed on Rudy, or or put down to innocent day to day activities in the cottage.

But let's not forget, it's not one lamp...but 'two'. Only one is Amanda's of course, but it is the 'positioning' of both the lamps that is just as important as the fact that one of them is from Amanda's room.

Mignini has made sure that the judges take notice of this and consider them very carefully.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
But even forgetting the cynical people for a moment, that phone call is a big problem for Amanda. Contrary to what she testified at the weekend, Amanda was NOT on the phone to Filomena when Raffaele was talking to his sister. (Source: the phone records.) And she HAD just spoken to her mother just before Raffaele made that call (source: phone records) and her mother HAD just told her to call the police. (Source: Edda Mellas.) So Amanda's testimony just plainly doesn't make sense, when judged against unarguable evidence like the phone records, combined with the testimony of her own mother.


She said she thought she was on the phone to Filomena when Raffaele talked to his sister. She got that wrong. It was her mother, not Filomena.
But how can this happen? She had lots of time to study the phone records. Her lawyers should have made sure that she doesn't give yet another version that doesn't add up. Very strange!


But actually, Lancelotti, she wasn't on the phone to her mother. She wasn't on the phone to anyone at all. The phone records seem (to me) to show a straightforward narrative of what happened in those moments:

12:47:23 Amanda calls Edda Mellas (88 seconds - so it ends at 12:48:51) Edda tells her to call the cops. (Amanda's next call is to Edda again, but not until 13:24:18)
12:50:34 Raffaele calls his sister. (39 seconds - so it ends at 12:51:13) His sister tells him to call the cops.
12:51:40 Raffaele calls 112 the first time. (169 seconds - so it ends at 12:54:29) He gets put on hold, and gets tired of waiting.
12:54:39 Raffaele calls 112 again. (57 seconds - so it ends at 12:55:36) This is the call that we've heard many times, with Amanda's voice in the background.

I agree with you that it's "very strange" that she has given another story that doesn't add up, after all this time to study the phone records, and so on.

In fact, I'd go further than "very strange" - I think it's disastrous. Because there is another narrative running against her, and this narrative actually does add up, and is supported by witness statements, cell phone reports, CCTV footage, and police records. And basically this narrative places Amanda and Raffaele in her bedroom at the time of the 1247 call to Edda Mellas. Edda says call the cops. A minute and a half later, that's what Raffaele does, or at least he calls his sister. (And in this narrative, it's easy to guess what happens in that minute and a half - "the cops are already here, how can we call the cops, I'll call my sister," and so on.) And then Vanessa Sollecito also says call the cops. And then he calls the cops. And then he calls the cops again. And then they both emerge from Amanda's bedroom, just before one, which is when Paola testified that she was them coming out of Amanda's bedroom. And that time in turn is fixed by the activation of Meredith's phone at the police station - at 1300.

Okay, she's not obliged to tell the truth, and she's certainly not obliged to carry a stopwatch with her and check exactly when she did what. But she IS obliged to give us neutrals some reason to think that the narrative I've just described isn't what actually happened.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Skep wrote:
Also, you seem to be saying that you have a problem with the prosecutor's case for homicide because there is no apparent motive. But we do have - unfortunately, tragically - a brutally murdered young woman. For me, that trumps motive in terms of determining whether or not we have a homicide on our hands. Given the ultimate cause of death, it would appear that Meredith's attackers or aggressors, as you wish, decided that their best course of action was to finish her off. That sounds very crude, and it pains me to write it, but there you have it. And that is homicide.


Abolutely right! Meredith is dead, that's a fact! She was murdered, that is also a fact! Therefore, because one cannot think of a motive for her murder, does that therefore mean it never happened? We here and certainly, the Kercher family, wish that was the case. Unfortunately, it isn't. Therefore, what we are left with, is a heap of evidence from the crime scene and other places that clearly shows it was perpetrated by multiple people and indicates that at least one of the people she lived with was involved. Should then, all that evidence simply be thrown into the bin simply because a definitive motive, which actually only the murderers themselves can know, is not provided on a silver platter?

That would be a green light to any murderer wouldn't it...'I can murder who I like, leave as much evidence as need be, but I'll get away with it just as long as I leave no clues or say anything as to the 'why' I did it.'

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: What type of internet access?
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:49 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Kermit wrote:
Tara wrote:
We know from DJ's interview with Candace Dempsey that Knox spent quite a bit of time and money Skyping him - why not others? It's an economical way to stay in touch.

From Knox's MySpace page in our "In their own words" section:

" the house has a kitchen, 2 bathrooms, and four bathrooms. not to mention a washing maschine, and internet access. not to mention, she owns two guitars and wants to play with me."

So just which type of "internet access"? We know Sollecito's apartment 5 minutes away had a connection through a landline. A couple months ago we saw that Broadband was being installed throughout Perugia.


By Nov.2 a.m. Sollecito's computer was in use again (our interest in his computer was principally focussed towards the evening and night of 1-2 Nov. 2007. She could have done a Skype call from his place (although I would have thought that the computer forensic people would have taken note of that .... unless they were given specific instructions to find the last activity in the evening of 1 Nov. and the first activity on 2 Nov., and not worry about what activity there was before or after.

Also, there are a number of Internet cafés within 5 minutes walking of the cottage of RS's place.



No, no connection to the Internet then either. The action on the computer on the morning of the 2nd was to open a 'media' file.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm
Posts: 378
FinnMacCool wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
But even forgetting the cynical people for a moment, that phone call is a big problem for Amanda. Contrary to what she testified at the weekend, Amanda was NOT on the phone to Filomena when Raffaele was talking to his sister. (Source: the phone records.) And she HAD just spoken to her mother just before Raffaele made that call (source: phone records) and her mother HAD just told her to call the police. (Source: Edda Mellas.) So Amanda's testimony just plainly doesn't make sense, when judged against unarguable evidence like the phone records, combined with the testimony of her own mother.


She said she thought she was on the phone to Filomena when Raffaele talked to his sister. She got that wrong. It was her mother, not Filomena.
But how can this happen? She had lots of time to study the phone records. Her lawyers should have made sure that she doesn't give yet another version that doesn't add up. Very strange!


But actually, Lancelotti, she wasn't on the phone to her mother. She wasn't on the phone to anyone at all.

No, of course she wasn't, it's not as if she remembers anything precisely. But Filomena's call wasn't anywhere near Raffaele's call to his sister, but her call to her mother took place shortly before.

Finn, do you have the time of the phone call to her mother, the one with "the foot" and the later one when she had discovered that a body is attached to the foot?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WAITING FOR GODOT
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Kermit wrote:
FLEngineer wrote:
For the life of me I can't imagne a plausible motive


Dang!!! That was a fast visit! He got away again!

-


Perhaps FLEngineer ran off to read this excerpt from "When Women Kill" where the book talks about motives.


WHEN WOMEN KILL: MOTIVES

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: The motive for the crime
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
Technically, it's against the law to murder people without a good reason for doing so. Tragically, it happens quite often.

So the absence of apparent motive doesn't really matter, any more than turning cartwheels in the police station really matters - what counts is the forensic evidence. Either it's there or it isn't.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: NOW WHAT DID I SAY I SAW?
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Michael wrote:
that's the first mention of the lamp during the trial and it was really important Mignini got it in there and drew attention to it. You see, the lamp in itself isn't hard evidence, but it is a 'clue'. It is one of the major factors that suggested everything in the cottage wasn't as it seemed...or was 'meant' to seem. There is a lot of...'artificiallity' there and of a kind that cannot be blamed on Rudy, or or put down to innocent day to day activities in the cottage.
.....
Mignini has made sure that the judges take notice of this and consider them very carefully.


It is of interest that in the trial Mignini/Comodi bring the lamp to Amanda's attention, and give her the oppotunity to comment on it being missing. She says "I don't remember".

For what it's worth, Amanda wrote in her email to the world: "i then went into the part of the house that meredith and i share and checked my room for things missing, which there werent. then i knocked on merediths room."
===============
Just a fast test for everyone: if you were to walk into your bedroom and the lamp on your night table was missing (if you don't have a lamp, substitute it for a clock radio or something), would you notice its absence if you were looking for anything out of place or missing?

Countdown 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0!!!

My answer is, honestly, yes, I would notice my lamp being gone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Kermit wrote:
Just a fast test for everyone: if you were to walk into your bedroom and the lamp on your night table was missing (if you don't have a lamp, substitute it for a clock radio or something), would you notice its absence if you were looking for anything out of place or missing?

Countdown 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0!!!

My answer is, honestly, yes, I would notice my lamp being gone.



Especially if your room didn't have that much stuff in there to begin with, which Amanda's didn't, having been living out of suit cases.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT ... DO IT RIGHT
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
FinnMacCool wrote:
Technically, it's against the law to murder people without a good reason for doing so. Tragically, it happens quite often.


The moral of the story, it seems, is that if you are ever about to become a murder victim, make an extra effort - go the distance - to be sure that there's a good motive, otherwise no one will ever be convicted for causing your death, in spite of all the evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:11 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
Hoi Lancelotti,
Ik heb de waarschuwing van Michael gezien en ik kan niet anders als hem gelijk geven voor zijn beslissing.
Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat iedereen op de board het eens is met mijn gedachten.
Wij zijn allemaal bereid om verschillende gezichtspunten te bespreken en te vergelijken, maar alleen als deze eerlijk zijn en zonder andere doeleinden.
Ik hoop dat je begrijpt dat we hier zijn om te discussieren en niet om elkaar in de haren te vliegen.
Ciao
Nicki

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike


Last edited by nicki on Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 314
Location: England
I think it's probably been said already, but a motive (or lack of motive) is completely irrelevant in court. It's only useful for those who think 'how could such a sweet innocent person do that?'. In fact all you need to prove is intent. You don't get convicted for thinking about it, you get convicted for carrying it out.

_________________
Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
But actually, Lancelotti, she wasn't on the phone to her mother. She wasn't on the phone to anyone at all.


No, of course she wasn't, it's not as if she remembers anything precisely. But Filomena's call wasn't anywhere near Raffaele's call to his sister, but her call to her mother took place shortly before.

Finn, do you have the time of the phone call to her mother, the one with "the foot" and the later one when she had discovered that a body is attached to the foot?


The first one is at 13:24:18, and it lasts for 162 seconds.
The next one is at 13:27:32 and it lasts for 26 seconds.
Both of those are probably in the hubbub that followed the finding of the body (at 1315, according to police records).
Edda calls her back at 13:29:00 and that call lasts for 296 seconds.

So those are the calls that she remembers. (And the one from Filomena was at 12:34:56.) For some reason, she doesn't remember the one at that she made to her mother at 12:47:23. I don't know why this is. But an obvious possibility is that she forgets it because it doesn't fit in with the narrative she's tried to construct around the discovery of the crime - meaning the narrative of the email, in which the series of phone calls she was involved in is completely forgotten and replaced with a story of herself and Raffaele running about the place, knocking on doors, looking through windows, and so on, culminating in them trying to break down Meredith's door and then deciding to call the police.

Okay, she's not obliged to tell the truth. But equally, we're entitled to ask the question, "Why isn't she telling the truth?"

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
My posts aren't showing up.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
I knew if I wrote that, it would show up. Just my luck. All other posts lost apparently.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
mrsdarcy wrote:
I knew if I wrote that, it would show up. Just my luck. All other posts lost apparently.


Were they any good?

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
justlooking wrote:
I think it's probably been said already, but a motive (or lack of motive) is completely irrelevant in court. It's only useful for those who think 'how could such a sweet innocent person do that?'. In fact all you need to prove is intent. You don't get convicted for thinking about it, you get convicted for carrying it out.


Justlooking, I think that 99.9 percent of us are with you on that, whatever our particular viewpoint on this crime may be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm
Posts: 139
Kermit, Finn

Amanda's first phone call - cleared up

OK .... Commodi said the telephone records confirmed that the first call to Edda was at Mezzogioro (midday), said that several times, also alle dodici (at 12) once. Nothing more precise on the time.

She said the call was also confirmed by the 'incezzione ambientale' ... hope that means the cell? ... 'environmental intercept' means bugger all to me,

As I say, this was the only time that Knox was really in trouble, on the 10th Edda is recorded as saying 'at 12 nothing had happened' ... Commodi continued .... in the sense that no cops have arrived, no door kicked down etc.

Knox recovered her composure pretty quickly and said she supposed that while she was thinking something strange, open door etc. she must have called about that.

Sorry about the delay. I'd be better organised next week, record audio number and time for each point, but with hours of riveting testimony it not as easy as it sounds. I'm exausted, I'd never do it for a living.

Anyway, very interesting weekend? we are moving towards the truth, even got a really funny moment

Patrick's lawyer asking Knox:

Q. 'Did anyone hear your voice at the cottage that night?'

Objection !!!! (presumably not allowed to use rudi's statements)

Q. ' OK, did Rudy hear your voice at the cottage that night?'

Uproar !!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
FinnMacCool wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
I knew if I wrote that, it would show up. Just my luck. All other posts lost apparently.


Were they any good?


OT-OT-OT:

That reminds me of Garrison Keillor, who's first manuscript of "Lake Wobegon Days" was stolen in a briefcase in a train station. The guy had to rewrite the whole book, and he insists that the stolen version (which probably ended up in a nearby garbage bin) was much better than what was finally published.
-
BTW, welcome Mrs. Darcy!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
kevin wrote:
Q. ' OK, did Rudy hear your voice at the cottage that night?'

Uproar !!!!


Ouch!!!!!!!!!!

Kevin, thanks for the work in deciphering the mystery call. Don't kill yourself on documenting all this ... we still have months ahead of us!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
mrsdarcy wrote:
I knew if I wrote that, it would show up. Just my luck. All other posts lost apparently.


Hi Mrsdarcy. It can sometimes be a little fiddly. My advice is to write your posts out on notepad or similar, then copy and paste in your posts, so that they aren't lost, at least until you become used to our board's little foibles.

When you submit a post and hit the 'submit' button, don't assume that your post has been posted. The new software now holds back ones post if someone else has posted in the meantime and asks you if you want to make any changes in light of the latest post. You then have to scroll down and make your changes, or not and hit 'submit' again. The process happens over if someone 'else' posts during that time, so...after hitting submit, ensure you see the little notice that says your post has 'been submitted successfully'...until you see that, it hasn't. It just takes a little getting used to.

In the meantime, welcome, along with all other new members, to PMF!!! :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm
Posts: 378
nicki wrote:
Hoi Lancelotti,
Wij zijn allemaal bereid om verschillende gezichtspunten te bespreken en te vergelijken
I am glad to hear it!

Quote:
maar alleen als deze eerlijk zijn en zonder andere doeleinden.
I don't know why you think I am not being honest? Honest with what? I really don't understand what you mean. Can you give me an example?

Quote:
Ik hoop dat je begrijpt dat we hier zijn om te discussieren en niet om elkaar in de haren te vliegen.
That's what I am here for too. Good to see we agree on something!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:56 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Speaking of TJMK (True Justice for Meredith Kercher), Nicki has a new post up. The comment that follows is quite interesting.

Quote:
Here is the reported response of Meredith’s roommate Filomena to Knox on the stand. The translation is by Kermit.

It is from the major Italian paper Corriere in a report by the tough journalist Fiorenza Sarzanini who wrote a book on the case.

*******

She (Amanda) doesn’t know that amongst the public is sitting Filomena Romanelli, her flatmate, the young woman who had agreed to lease to her one of the rooms of the cottage in Via della Pergola. They were friends, Amanda in fact called Filomena on the morning of 2 November 2007 when “I returned home and found the door open and everything seemed very strange because there was blood on the sink, on the bathmat, and Meredith’s room was locked” .

Now, however, they appear distant, completely separate from each other. Filomena appears annoyed to hear the American reconstruct her movements of that day and above all her alibi for the previous night, that of the crime. “She’s incoherent, she continues to change versions,” bursts out Filomena, convinced that nobody has recognized her.



Oops, I missed this post! That's rather important, if that elicits such emotions from Filomena! Unfortunately for Amanda, Filomena's reaction to her testimony counts for a lot, it says everything.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
Michael wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
I knew if I wrote that, it would show up. Just my luck. All other posts lost apparently.


Hi Mrsdarcy. It can sometimes be a little fiddly. My advice is to write your posts out on notepad or similar, then copy and paste in your posts, so that they aren't lost, at least until you become used to our board's little foibles.

When you submit a post and hit the 'submit' button, don't assume that your post has been posted. The new software now holds back ones post if someone else has posted in the meantime and asks you if you want to make any changes in light of the latest post. You then have to scroll down and make your changes, or not and hit 'submit' again. The process happens over if someone 'else' posts during that time, so...after hitting submit, ensure you see the little notice that says your post has 'been submitted successfully'...until you see that, it hasn't. It just takes a little getting used to.

In the meantime, welcome, along with all other new members, to PMF!!! :)


Thank you kindly for the excellent pointers.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:50 pm
Posts: 15
JustLooking wrote:
I think it's probably been said already, but a motive (or lack of motive) is completely irrelevant in court. It's only useful for those who think 'how could such a sweet innocent person do that?'. In fact all you need to prove is intent. You don't get convicted for thinking about it, you get convicted for carrying it out


sheesh. I have no idea how sweet or innocent AK, RS, and RG are. I havn't watched any of the videos or read the diaries that people mention. i don't see how that matters. Your statement "but a motive (or lack of motive) is completely irrelevant in court" is absurd hyperbole . I bet 99% of lawyers would disagree with that statment. Maybe motive will not apply in this specific case, but to say "motive is s completely irrelevant in court" is nonsense. Motive is not some absurd legal concept that I alone have created.

It is obvious to me that this board is not quite as neutral as I first thought it was. I did expose a major error in your timeline in the brief day or so I have been here so hopefully everyone has benefited from my brief postings.

thanks,
Jeff Kelsey
Boca Raton, FL


Last edited by FLEngineer on Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm
Posts: 378
FinnMacCool wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
But actually, Lancelotti, she wasn't on the phone to her mother. She wasn't on the phone to anyone at all.


No, of course she wasn't, it's not as if she remembers anything precisely. But Filomena's call wasn't anywhere near Raffaele's call to his sister, but her call to her mother took place shortly before.

Finn, do you have the time of the phone call to her mother, the one with "the foot" and the later one when she had discovered that a body is attached to the foot?


The first one is at 13:24:18, and it lasts for 162 seconds.
The next one is at 13:27:32 and it lasts for 26 seconds.
Both of those are probably in the hubbub that followed the finding of the body (at 1315, according to police records).
Edda calls her back at 13:29:00 and that call lasts for 296 seconds.


Thank you sooo much! I couldn't find the time for those calls anywhere.

Quote:
For some reason, she doesn't remember the one at that she made to her mother at 12:47:23. I don't know why this is. But an obvious possibility is that she forgets it because it doesn't fit in with the narrative she's tried to construct around the discovery of the crime - meaning the narrative of the email, in which the series of phone calls she was involved in is completely forgotten and replaced with a story of herself and Raffaele running about the place, knocking on doors, looking through windows, and so on, culminating in them trying to break down Meredith's door and then deciding to call the police.

Hmmm, don't know. I would have thought that building a story around known facts would sound a lot better than constructing a whole new one with lots of "I don't remember" in it.
That was a bit disappointing I thought.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:08 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
Lancelotti wrote:
nicki wrote:
Hoi Lancelotti,
Wij zijn allemaal bereid om verschillende gezichtspunten te bespreken en te vergelijken
I am glad to hear it!

Quote:
maar alleen als deze eerlijk zijn en zonder andere doeleinden.
I don't know why you think I am not being honest? Honest with what? I really don't understand what you mean. Can you give me an example?

Quote:
Ik hoop dat je begrijpt dat we hier zijn om te discussieren en niet om elkaar in de haren te vliegen.
That's what I am here for too. Good to see we agree on something!


Nice to know that you understand Dutch but you replied in English, that's very nice of you.
Sorry, but you did not get the message.
Nicki

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm
Posts: 378
that's right. i didn't


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
FLEngineer wrote:
I havn't watched any of the videos or read the diaries that people mention. i don't see how that matters.


Well, the diaries do actually constitute part of the evidence in the 10,000 page case file. They also provide personal accounts from each of the suspects, in their own words, of the days in question. For me, personally speaking, that makes them matter...but then, I'm picky.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
On one website, I don't remember which one, I saw two photographs of the murder scene; one of the room where MK's body was found and another of the bathroom. In MK's room, there was a lot of blood, near the wardrobe in particular; but the bathroom also looked frightening. I don't know if it was a bad photo, but there was kind of a pinkish color to the sink and the toilet, and then smears of blood all over, including on the walls. Who on earth (if this photo is fairly accurate) would attribute this amount of blood to menstruation problems? It seems to me any blood in any area of the house, coupled with some other very odd things (the door being ajar, etc.), would alarm any halfway normal female. And why would AK assume menstruation blood would not be cleaned up by her flat-mates, as they were obviously very fastidious in their personal habits, a matter which had been a source of contention between them and her? I know this is no novel observation...I just don't think on this point there is any room for doubt that AK knew MK was dead and that she was not afraid of becoming the next victim...there is no other logical explanation (unless, of course, this photo was inaccurate and the amount of blood in the bathroom was negligible, which I doubt, since I think I remember Filomena referred to blood on the bathroom walls in her testimony).

Others have also referred to the necessity of proving motive. I confess I'm not familiar with the law in Italy, but in the US motive is not something which has to be proven. Of course, every prosecutor will cover the issue of motive because, for the jury, this is always very important. They need a complete picture of the case in order to convict, and the total absence of motive can be compelling, especially where the evidence is less than powerful.

The nice thing about motive, from a prosecutor's point of view, is that it is usually pretty apparent in cases where the defendant and the victim knew each other. Some have referred to MK's murder as a thrill killing, and in some ways I think it was, but there was also an emotional relationship between the accused and the victim...there was tension, there was jealousy (on AK's part). I don't think AK just happened to be present when things got out of hand. I think she was the true mastermind here because she hated MK. She describes MK as her "friend", but then says she "only knew her for a month." Her response to MK's death was not that of a friend or even of an acquaintance; her response is that of an enemy, which is to say, a complete lack of feeling. I don't think she regrets MK's death; I think she is glad MK was killed. That is how jealousy is; it's painful, it's a torment, and when the object of that jealousy is removed, there is relief, which is difficult to hide.

The jury will certainly understand jealousy as a motive, even if it is not laid out for them. AIDA is an opera about jealousy, in which, for the sake of jealousy, murder is committed. Italians understand the force and power of human passions.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Mrsdarcy wrote:
On one website, I don't remember which one, I saw two photographs of the murder scene; one of the room where MK's body was found and another of the bathroom. In MK's room, there was a lot of blood, near the wardrobe in particular; but the bathroom also looked frightening. I don't know if it was a bad photo, but there was kind of a pinkish color to the sink and the toilet, and then smears of blood all over, including on the walls. Who on earth (if this photo is fairly accurate) would attribute this amount of blood to menstruation problems? It seems to me any blood in any area of the house, coupled with some other very odd things (the door being ajar, etc.), would alarm any halfway normal female.



Well...those pictures are after chemical enhancement to show up the blood not visible to the naked eye, that isn't what the suspects would have seen...or at least, not 'after' they'd cleaned the bathroom.

The picture you refer to is important though, in that it clarifies the fact that the bathroom was indeed cleaned after the murder and the state it was in before it was cleaned. Of course, the mantra coming from certain quarters is 'there was no clean-up!'. When one also takes into account the various spots, pools, smears and footprints in blood only visible under luminol enhancement all over the common areas of the cottage, it becomes very clear in regard to the fact of the clean-up and the scale of it.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
Hi Mrs Darcy,

Judge Paolo Micheli didn’t believe Amanda Knox’s account and noted that she was “mucking about in the house and taking a shower with all that blood [from the murder] around”.

According to the forensic experts’ report, the tap of the wash basin was “notably stained”.

This report by Nick Squires sheds light on just how much blood there actually was in the bathroom:

Miss Romanelli told the court how Miss Knox had telephoned her on the morning after the murder – before Meredith’s body had been found – to say that she had just taken a shower and that she had noticed blood stains in the bathroom.

Miss Romanelli was away from the cottage at the time, having spent the night with her boyfriend.

“She told me ‘It’s very odd. I’ve just come back to the house and the door is open. I had a shower but there’s blood everywhere. I’m going to get Raff. Meredith is nowhere to be seen. Oh God, maybe something’s happened to her, something tragic.’”

It struck Miss Romanelli as strange that Miss Knox would choose to take a shower when the bathroom was spattered with blood.

Police forensic experts later found 13 traces of blood in the bathroom, including a 10-inch-long smear on the floor and numerous droplets.

I thought it was odd that she’d had a shower when there was blood all over the place,” she told chief prosecutor Giuliano Mignini during cross-examination. “I really don’t think that’s normal.” (The Daily Telegraph, 8 February, 2009).


Last edited by The Machine on Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:34 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
Lancelotti wrote:
that's right. i didn't


Too bad for you... You could have learned something....
Schade daß du die Englische Sprache nicht verstehst.....
Tschüß

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:

Quote:
For some reason, she doesn't remember the one at that she made to her mother at 12:47:23. I don't know why this is. But an obvious possibility is that she forgets it because it doesn't fit in with the narrative she's tried to construct around the discovery of the crime - meaning the narrative of the email, in which the series of phone calls she was involved in is completely forgotten and replaced with a story of herself and Raffaele running about the place, knocking on doors, looking through windows, and so on, culminating in them trying to break down Meredith's door and then deciding to call the police.

Hmmm, don't know. I would have thought that building a story around known facts would sound a lot better than constructing a whole new one with lots of "I don't remember" in it.
That was a bit disappointing I thought.


I don't quite get what you mean, here. Surely if she has to build a story around known facts, that would be a "new" story.

Inventing a story with plenty of "I don't remember" and "it happened so fast" and "I didn't know what to think" might look, on the face of it, to have plenty of wiggle room in it. But actually even this flexible story also needs to tie in with the known facts, one way or the other.

To me, looking at Amanda's difficulty over that question, it seems as if she's overlooked the problem coming from the direction she least expected it - her own mother. (And we can also hear from the weekend's testimony that Edda herself, quite early on, raised the question of why Amanda phoned her at that point.)

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 314
Location: England
FLEngineer wrote:
JustLooking wrote:
I think it's probably been said already, but a motive (or lack of motive) is completely irrelevant in court. It's only useful for those who think 'how could such a sweet innocent person do that?'. In fact all you need to prove is intent. You don't get convicted for thinking about it, you get convicted for carrying it out


sheesh. I have no idea how sweet or innocent AK, RS, and RG are. I havn't watched any of the videos or read the diaries that people mention. i don't see how that matters. Your statement "but a motive (or lack of motive) is completely irrelevant in court" is absurd hyperbole . I bet 99% of lawyers would disagree with that statment. Maybe motive will not apply in this specific case, but to say "motive is s completely irrelevant in court" is nonsense. Motive is not some absurd legal concept that I alone have created.

It is obvious to me that this board is not quite as neutral as I first thought it was. I did expose a major error in your timeline in the brief day or so I have been here so hopefully everyone has benefited from my brief postings.

thanks,
Jeff Kelsey
Boca Raton, FL


Jeff, I don't see why my comments makes you think that this board 'is not quite as neutral' as you first thought? I'm all for discussing the intricacies of the case and the relative importance of a motive in convicting someone of murder, but it looks like you don't want to discuss this.

_________________
Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm
Posts: 378
nicki wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
that's right. i didn't


Schade daß du die Englische Sprache nicht verstehst.....


no idea what you mean, sorry. but thanks for trying anyway!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Hi Mrsdarcy,

The pics you may have seen of Meredith's room all show a lot of blood and are actual photo's of the scene.

There are two kinds of pics from the bathroom:

Some show the real scene, spots and smears of blood on the faucett etc, the bloody footprint on the bathmat but these are all minor compared to the scene in Meredith's room.

After the forensic team had collected the obvious samples of blood which were visible in the bathroom, they applied luminol to try and expose any blood stains which may not have been visible to the naked eye.

The pink pics of the bathroom come from after the time they applied the luminol.

They don't show the luminol in action which reveals blood under an ultra violet light.

The just show where the luminol was applied and were taken after the forensics team had finished their biz.

In short, the pink is used luminol and not blood.


Last edited by Brian S. on Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
The funny thing is the direct evidence in a case is often less important to a jury than the little bits of of circumstantial evidence when taken all in all just don't add up. It is very easy to contradict direct evidence. Witnesses mistake one person for another; times are mistaken, chronologies don't agree. You can take an entirely innocuous event and have different people write their accounts of that event, and the in most cases they will differ on how much time something took or when something happened and even the order in which things happen.

Direct evidence and forensic evidence is usually subject to interpretation (short of actually "seeing" someone commit the crime, and even that can be challenged for accuracy and the truthfulness of the witness). The major things that point to AK's involvement are...1) the cleanup 2) how did killer get in? 3) showering in a bloody bathroom...but to me the most important indication of her guilt was her response to the authorities' questions and her naming PL. If she had been subjected to actual physical or psychological torture, one could possibly understand her naming somebody, anybody, to get the torture to stop; but I don't think anyone believes this is the case. I think from the outset the Italian authorities put two and two together and believed Amanda was involved, and I suspect they overstates the case to see how she would react. She reacted just as a guilty person always does. They start to "talk" because they don't know what the police know, but they know there is a possibility the police have evidence against them since they themselves know that such evidence has a good likelihood of existing. AK was thinking: okay, they know I was at the apartment when MK was murdered (mamma mia!), so I can't lie about this...so I'll confess I was at the apartment, but I was in the other room, but not a party to the murder, and in fact shocked and horrified by the murder (covering her ears against MK's screams.) This is, of course, totally ridiculous--she would have gone for help or tried to intervene--but it's the best she can do under the circumstances because she is being placed at the scene of the crime during the commission of the crime and has to reveal something. She named PL because 1) she resented him 2) he is a black man. In other words, she is playing the margins. She knows she can name RG, but that would show an inordinate amount of information about something she is still not willing to admit being a party to...naming PL is a way of keeping the authorities at an arm's length until she can get her story straight, a way to get them off her case, which only a guilty person would need to do.

Again, innocent people don't get confused about whether or not they were present at a murder; that is just the stupidest thing imaginable, that someone could be fooled into believing that. We are not talking about an impressionable child here, after all, or someone who is mentally challenged or insane.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Mrs. Darcy wrote:

Quote:
Again, innocent people don't get confused about whether or not they were present at a murder; that is just the stupidest thing imaginable, that someone could be fooled into believing that. We are not talking about an impressionable child here, after all, or someone who is mentally challenged or insane.


Welcome, Mrs. Darcy. One of the most bizarre statements made by AK this weekend was that it suddenly dawned on her that what she imagined was wrong. I think the performance in the courtoom was perhaps intended to take the focus away from the absurdity of some of these claims.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: GONE WITH THE WIND ...
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
FLEngineer wrote:
in the brief day or so I have been here so hopefully everyone has benefited from my brief postings


Reminds me of that long Jacques Prévert poem:

"Un certain Blaise Pascal, etc. etc."

(That's the whole poem)

FLEngineer wrote:
I did expose a major error in your timeline


I find it kind of interesting that this guy arrives, says that he's new to the case, then zooms in on an issue we haven't talked about for months and which hasn't come up in the trial, calling it a Revelation.

Whether Raffaele and Amanda had a mop in their hands or not isn't important. There was a mop outside. It would have been there (or in the hands of the happy couple) when the Telecommunications Police arrived. Its last use may have been in the cottage or it may have been at Raffaele's place.

This photo was taken 6 months after the crime. The mop and bucket are still outside, still tied to the brick column with a police plastic tape. It's clear that for whatever reason, the investigators decided that this mop was not of interest to analyse (or it was impossible to analyse because of contamination).

If that had been a problem, I'm sure that Bongiorno & Co. would have taken it upon themselves to use the mop outside as part of their campaign to show that the police did a poor job on forensics. They didn't.

So much for the major error



Last edited by Kermit on Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
Brian S. wrote:
Hi Mrsdarcy,

The pics you may have seen of Meredith's room all show a lot of blood and are actual photo's of the scene.

There are two kinds of pics from the bathroom:

Some show the real scene, spots and smears of blood on the faucett etc, the bloody footprint on the bathmat but these are all minor compared to the scene in Meredith's room.

After the forensic team had collected the obvious samples of blood which were visible in the bathroom, they applied luminol to try and expose any blood stains which may not have been visible to the naked eye.

The pink pics of the bathroom come from after the time they applied the luminol.

They don't show the luminol in action which reveals blood under an ultra violet light.

The just show where the luminol was applied and were taken after the forensics team had finished their biz.

In short, the pink is used luminol and not blood.


Thanks, I figured the pink was the result of some kind of chemical reaction because this would have been a total bloodbath scene otherwise...but it still looked like there was plenty of blood smears in the bathroom, enough to completely spook the average person. It would take very little blood to give me the heebie-jeebies, especially if it was here and there and in particular on the walls, rather than concentrated in one spot.

But, of course, it's all about the cleanup...that's the main issue.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Jeff the engineer wrote:

Quote:
It is obvious to me that this board is not quite as neutral as I first thought it was. I did expose a major error in your timeline in the brief day or so I have been here so hopefully everyone has benefited from my brief postings.


Michael acknowledged the error, which in my opinion is less major than you make it out to be. You seem a bit hasty in your judgement of this board, since you have spent so little time here - just a brief day by your own reckoning.

Believe it or not, the question of motive has been discussed amply here, and I would be willing to wager that justlooking knows what he's talking about when it comes to the subject of what matters in a court of law. So do many other people.

I would be glad to defer to you or another expert on matters pertaining to software engineering, but when it comes to logic, I only defer to the force of the better argument, backed up by facts. What JL wrote about motive was spot on. If you have a substantive quibble with it, then state your case. But why attack the board?

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 314
Location: England
mrsdarcy, good to see your posts showing up in all their finery :). I agree with your thought processes on this. It's interesting to try and get into how someone would react when being accused of being involved in the murder. I too don't see the false accusation helping her at all. The 'interrogation' was not severe, there was no physical violence (two taps to the back of the head - 'it didn't hurt'), there are plenty of people who deny it even happened that way. If you are being placed at the scene of the crime and you maybe suspect that the police have evidence of this then accusing Patrick is fairly logical. Accusing Rudi - less so. Meredith knew and worked with Patrick. Patrick may have even mentioned at some point how great Meredith was at working the bar, and possibly commented on her attractiveness. Rudi wouldn't have made such a good fall guy as she would have correctly accused one of the perpetrators. It's all a bit of a mess, her mind is probably going like the clappers, any agreed alibi with Raffaele seems to be falling apart after he said he didn't support her version any more. What are you going to do to try and get out of that mess? Well, in reality you don't do or say anything. You certainly don't offer the police 'a gift'. Easier said than done though when you think you're about to be nailed for the murder of your flatmate. So yes, I agree. The false accusation is a very important piece of evidence against her, which is obviously why it took up a large part of the testimony this weekend.

_________________
Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm
Posts: 378
FinnMacCool wrote:
To me, looking at Amanda's difficulty over that question, it seems as if she's overlooked the problem coming from the direction she least expected it - her own mother. (And we can also hear from the weekend's testimony that Edda herself, quite early on, raised the question of why Amanda phoned her at that point.)


I see. I didn't know the email she sent to her friends was part of the trial so that she had to match her testimony to that. I thought she could just go by the phone records and create a believable story around those. Her mother's testimony will be interesting then!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
mrsdarcy wrote:
naming PL is a way of keeping the authorities at an arm's length until she can get her story straight, a way to get them off her case, which only a guilty person would need to do.


My thoughts exactly.

When she walked into the police station that night she had an alibi in Raffaele.

An hour later a policeman comes out of the room where Raffaele is being interviewed and informs her that Raffele has just said she went out at 9:00 and didn't come home until 1:00.

She must have been gobsmacked and lost for words.

EDIT to add: If she was innocent she would have had no hesitation in turning around and saying, "Well, he's a liar then!!".


Last edited by Brian S. on Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GONE WITH THE WIND ...
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 314
Location: England
Kermit wrote:
FLEngineer wrote:
in the brief day or so I have been here so hopefully everyone has benefited from my brief postings


Reminds me of that long Jacques Prévert poem:

"Un certain Blaise Pascal, etc. etc."

(That's the whole poem)


Brilliant :). I like poets who cut to the chase like that ;).

_________________
Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
To me, looking at Amanda's difficulty over that question, it seems as if she's overlooked the problem coming from the direction she least expected it - her own mother. (And we can also hear from the weekend's testimony that Edda herself, quite early on, raised the question of why Amanda phoned her at that point.)


I see. I didn't know the email she sent to her friends was part of the trial so that she had to match her testimony to that. I thought she could just go by the phone records and create a believable story around those. Her mother's testimony will be interesting then!


Lancelotti,

Any evidence to demonstrate a changing story is obviously gonna be used in court.

If I robbed a bank in London on Saturday and later sent an email to one of my friends saying I was in Manchester that day, only to follow it up with a later email to another friend which said I was in Glasgow. Don't you think the police would use those emails as a demonstration to the court that I was lying?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Mrs. Darcy wrote:

Quote:
Again, innocent people don't get confused about whether or not they were present at a murder; that is just the stupidest thing imaginable, that someone could be fooled into believing that. We are not talking about an impressionable child here, after all, or someone who is mentally challenged or insane.


Welcome, Mrs. Darcy. One of the most bizarre statements made by AK this weekend was that it suddenly dawned on her that what she imagined was wrong. I think the performance in the courtoom was perhaps intended to take the focus away from the absurdity of some of these claims.



Yes, it's pretty amazing the way some people suspend logic in cases like this, where murder is involved. People are forced to confront a degree of malice and brutality that is so beyond what is normal or reasonable that they start to doubt the very idea of normalcy and they are hesitant to apply normal ideas of behavior to the characters involved. This is a big mistake because what is reasonable and normal is the very foundation of any kind of ability to discern the difference between deception and truth. AK's behavior was not, under the circumstances, normal or the kind of behavior attributable to innocence. Her weepy mother can attribute all kinds of rational reasons for her daughter's irrational behavior, but an objective bystander should be able to see the odd behavior for what it is, having no emotional reason to convince himself otherwise.

And the idea that in such a short period of time the authorities could convince AK that she didn't remember whether she was a party to this crime or not defies logic. Had I been her attorney, I would nonetheless have promoted the idea she is mentally ill, bipolar or something, which explains her odd behavior (cartwheels in the police state, lack of sexual inhibitions, pleasure-seeking, etc.)...this would at least have been more tenable than the "I was just so confused" theory.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
Brian S. wrote:
When she walked into the police station that night she had an alibi in Raffaele.

An hour later a policeman comes out of the room where Raffaele is being interviewed and informs her that Raffele has just said she went out at 9:00 and didn't come home until 1:00.

She must have been gobsmacked and lost for words.


She must have known the police were onto Sollecito and her, that's why she was hitting herself repeatedly on the head while Sollecito was being interviewed.

Edgardo Giobbi, the head of the violent crimes unit in Rome, said that they could hear Knox shouting in the corridor when Diya Lumumba's name was mentioned. Apparently, her mood swung wildly that evening; one moment she was turning cartwheels and acting impishly and the next she was crying and shouting.

Sollecito was calm and collected for the most part. He only reacted badly when he learnt that Knox was being interviewed without him being present.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Hi everyone. I'm posting audio segments 1 and 2 (out of 8) from the Saturday cross-examination. I admit it, I skipped 8-12 from
Friday because I found Ghirga was being a bit too nice, I wanted to hear Mignini. I'm going to complete the Saturday audios
first.

Personally I think that Mignini exaggerated over the linguistic analysis of the word "suggestion", saying that the police could only have
"suggested" the name of Patrick to Amanda if they had pronounced his name before she did. Whereas she asserts that they pressed
her to identify the addressee of the famous text message, and then when she had identified him (so she was the first to pronounce
his name), they "suggested" to her that she had met him that evening etc. And Mignini refused to accept that this could be called
"suggestion" in Italian, but I found he was splitting hairs and that what she was saying was clear. Mignini's interrogation in this first
part of the day was not as smashing as I hoped, but I'll soon see the rest!

FINN, looking over the testimony, I am CERTAIN that Amanda is saying that she called her mother at 12:47 and didn't hear Raffaele
calling his sister (at 12:51) because she was still on the phone with her mother. And this was BEFORE the police arrived, she is
definitely saying this. Her lawyer also led her to add that some other officers arrived after the door had been broken down and the
postal police had sent everyone outside. (Presumably these were the carabinieri, but we hear no more about them.) She is using
your timeline, the impossible one, for certain! Maybe she read it on here?

Anyway, I will post the audios now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
I saw that picture too. It was all pinkish looking. But then watching videos of the forensic the bathroom appeared very white, as normal.

what was found in the bathroom...I can't imagine anyone taking a shower in a severely bloody bathroom with blood on the walls and everywhere. I can imagine a kid running in the house, zooming to do their thing and taking a shower and quickly leaving quickly without investigating anything, or even thinking much of anything.

I'll have to assume the pinkish picture was a bad camera shot, and the bathroom wasn't at all like the bedroom, unless told differently.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Audios #1 and #2 of Saturday cross-examination



9:30 Saturday morning, June 13, 2009

[Discussion between lawyers, in particular advice to avoid repeating questions
already posed. Background noise and admonitions of "shhh". Also lengthy
discussion of the presence of television cameras, photographers. Final
conclusion: they still have to stay out except for some minutes at the
beginning and/or end.]

9:40 [A lot of background noise, talking in the public.] If the public could
politely cease the noise and comments...yes...we could begin the audience.
[He recalls: trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, all the names
of lawyers involved, defense and prosecution, "parti civili".]

He invites Amanda to state her identity again, which she does.

The interrogation is by the "pubblico ministero" [Mignini].

All right, Miss Knox, can you tell us about when you first met Raffaele
Sollecito?

It was at a concert at the Universita per Stranieri, I think it was on Oct 25.

October 25?

So I've understood [odd remark: meaning "so I've been told?"]

So it was just about a week before the facts, more or less. Now, on the
afternoon and evening of Oct 31, can you tell us what you did?

In the evening?

Afternoon and evening.

So, in the afternoon, I remember that I met a friend for coffee, my friend
Spiros. We had coffee in the center, and then in the street when I was going
back to meet Raffaele, I was still with him and I met someone I had gotten to
know at "Le Chic", who said "We'll see each other later at Le Chic"...

You said "We'll see each other later?"

Yes, yes.

To whom? To Raffaele's friend?

No, no. It was my friend, that I had gotten to know in a bar, a cafe that
also had internet service, and then, okay. What happened next? [Long
pause with sound 'ummmmm', 'hmmm'.] Did I go home? I can't remember.

You can't remember.

And then, for Halloween, I know I went to Le Chic first, and then after I was
there for a little while, I again met Spiros, outside the Merlin, and we went
to a place with a bunch of his friends, I can't remember what place it was
now, a kind of Irish pub, and then he...I said I was tired and wanted to
meet Raffaele in the center, and so he accompanied me on foot to near the
church, where I met Raffaele, who took me to his apartment.

Now. [I'm using "Now" today to translate "Senta" which really means "Listen",
but starting a question with "Listen" in English makes it sound kind of
aggressive, which for now Mignini's voice is not. Rather, quiet and very
poised.] Have you ever made use of drugs? In particular on the afternoon
or the evening of Nov 1?

I did smoke a joint with Raffaele in the evening, yes.

So you do confirm this detail.

Yes.

So now we get to Patrick's message.

Okay.

So, Patrick's message came, I believe you said, at 8:15.

Yes.

More or less. What did it say exactly?

I don't remember the exact words...

[Interrupts] Was it in Italian? Was it in Italian?

Yes, it was in Italian. It had to do with the fact that there wasn't anyone
at Le Chic so I didn't need to go to work.

And you saw this message at around what time?

Uh, I don't remember the time.

But was it after a little while or right away?

I was on Raffaele's bed and then I noticed that there was this symbol on my
phone.

But you don't remember when?

No. I don't look at the clock.

And you answered Patrick -- how did you answer?

Well, I wrote something like "Okay, see you later ["ci vediamo piu -- um --
tardi"], buona serata.


You answered in which language?

In Italian. He didn't speak English.

"Ci vediamo piu tardi", you said.

Yes.

OK --

Which in English means "See you" --

Yes but, excuse me, but you answered in Italian.

Yes.

"Ci vediamo piu tardi."

He doesn't speak English.

Very well. It follows that your cell phone [gives number] and Sollecito's
[gives number] stopped their activity respectively, yours at 8:35 and
his at 8:42. Why?

I turned mine off, because I didn't want to get another message from Patrick,
because actually I didn't really want to go to work. For example, he
had told me that I didn't have to work, but if then a bunch of people showed
up, well honestly, he had told me I didn't have to go to work and I wanted
to stay with Raffaele.

Yesterday if I'm not mistaken, you said that you did it to stay with
Raffaele.

Yes.

On page 40 (I don't know if it corresponds) of the minutes of your interrogation
of December 17, you said, I'll read it, that: "I turned off my phone to
save my battery." Do you remember that?

Well, if it's written there, it must be okay.

Today you're saying one thing, in the interrogation you said another. [Voice
intervenes: can you be more precise about the page?] Page 40: I'll read it.
"But why did you turn off your phone?" Interrogation of Dec 17. "To save
my battery." "Do you usually keep it on at night?" [Voices arguing, a bit
annoyed, they can't find it in the text?] Well, bottom of page 39, but these
were the words. Knox's answer: "To save my battery." "Do you usually keep
it on at night?" "If I have something to do the next morning." "But the
next morning was the day on which everyone skipped school." "But we were
supposed to go to Gubbio the next day with Raffaele." The next day was the
2nd?

Mhm.

You wanted to go to Gubbio on the 2nd or the 3rd?

No, on the 2nd we wanted to go to Gubbio.

So, you turned off your telephone so Patrick wouldn't be able to call you in
to work, or you turned it off to save your battery, not to use up your
battery. Now, you remember what, what battery you had? what kind of autonomy
it had?

What kind of battery?

Yes.

I don't know what type of battery it was, but...

The autonomy of the battery? Do you remember?

I think it was about one or two days. It wasn't very long, but in the end,
well, for example, the next morning, I was going to go to Gubbio, but
I didn't have time to charge up the battery, so I thought, I don't want to
get any phone calls this evening, and if I want to have my phone with me
in Gubbio, I wanted it to be reasonably charged up. That's why I turned it off.

I see. Now -- are we hearing something from the "contestazione"?
[Voices arguing] In fact, yesterday Amanda Knox stated that turning off the
cell phone was to guarantee her a free evening without being...[interruption]
But at the interrogation of Dec 17 she said...On Dec 17 she said it was
to save battery and also for this reason [different voices, can't
tell who is saying what, but I think this is Ghirga. Also they are
interrupting each other]. So, I thought I understood that she had two
reasons. We're not arguing about that. The "contestazione" isn't about that. It's about... Please, please, let's return to the cross-examination by the
pubblico ministero. The defense lawyers will have the final words. Everyone
will hear what they have to say then.

The objection was because the request to introduce...[A bit more yelling.]
Enough now ["adesso basta"].

[I think this is Ghirga] My objection concerned the fact that the pubblico
ministero seemed to contest the fact that in the Dec 17 interrogation, she
also explained that she turned off her phone because she didn't want to be
called by Patrick, because she didn't want to be disturbed. This doesn't
correspond to the truth, because on page 40 of the minutes, she actually
says "So, I turned it off also to not run the risk that Patrick would
change his mind and call me in." [Interruption] "To save her battery!"
"All right, we heard the pubblico ministero...we heard him describe a reason,
two reasons, if there's a contradiction, there will be an analysis. It's
not only half a contradiction, or not a contradiction." [different voices]
Now let's leave this question...please, pubblico ministero. Go ahead. [I'm
using this expression to translate "prego".]

Why? erm-ahem -- why did you return to this point several times?
Okay.

Why did you speak about Patrick only in the interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45?
Why didn't you mention him before? You never mentioned him before.

Before what?

In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, then,
there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then there's Nov 6, 1:45. Only
in these declarations, and then in the following spontaneous declarations,
did you mention the name of Patrick. Why hadn't you ever mentioned him before?

Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name to me.

All right, now is the time for you to make this precise and specific. At
this point I will take...no, I'll come back to it later. You need to
explain this. You have stated: "The name of Patrick was suggested to me.
I was hit, pressured."

Yes.

Now you have to tell me in a completely detailed way, you have to remember
for real, you have to explain step by step, who, how, when, was the name of
Patrick suggested to you, and what had been done before that point, when
the name of Patrick hadn't yet come up like a mushroom; in the preceding
situation. Who put pressure on you, what do you mean by the word "pressure",
who hit you. You said: "They hit me", and at the request of the lawyer
Ghirga, yesterday, you described two little blows, two cuffs.

Yes.

So that would be what you meant by being hit?

Yes.

Or something else? Tell me if there was something else. You can tell us.

Okay.

[Interruption by Ghirga, to explain, I guess to Amanda, that the pubblico
ministero is coming back to the same terrain covered yesterday, in order to
give her the chance to add detail.]

All right [Amanda says]. Okay.

If you could give more detail, be more precise, exactly what was suggested to
you, about the cuffs, all that.

Okay.

And who did all this, if you can.


Okay. Fine. So, when I got to the Questura, they placed me to the side, near
the elevator, where I was waiting for Raffaele. I had taken my homework, and
was starting to do my homework, but a policeman came in, in fact there were
I don't know, three of them or something, and they wanted to go on talking to
me. They asked me again --

Excuse me, excuse me --

-- to tell them --

Excuse me for interrupting you otherwise we'll forget --

[Ghirga] I object to this interruption! The question was asked...[Yelling,
interruptions, "It's impossible to question someone this way! There's a
rule that says one should avoid any interruptions. She has the right to
finish her answer. It's not possible to go on like this, no, no, no..."
interrupting...Mignini starts "I can" -- Ghirga: "no, nobody can! We have
to make sure that when someone is speaking, there's no superimposing of
voices. And since the accused is undergoing examination, she has the right
to be allowed to answer in the calmest possible way. Interruptions and
talking at the same time don't help, and they can't be written down in the
minutes, which obliges the courts to suspend the audience and start it again
at a calmer and more tranquil moment." Mignini starts again: "Presidente..."
Ghirga: "No, no, no! Interruptions are not allowed! The accused is
allowed to answer without interruption, and then when she's done, you can go
back and ask questions" -- interruption -- "please! While she's speaking,
everyone is requested to see that she is not interrupted. During her
exposition one could ask "When?" for instance if she is saying
"I was doing homework" -- Amanda: "Okay". Ghirga: "If you say precise dates
and times, they won't need to come back over your testimony." "Okay."
"In your exposition, be more detailed about the time and the date."

Okay. Um --

[Ghirga:] So everyone is asked to avoid interruptions while she is speaking,
and when she's finished, we can go over what she said. Go ahead.

Thank you. So, here is...how I understood the question, I'm answering about
what happened to me on the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th of
November 2007, and when we got to the Questura, I think it was around
10:30 or nearer 11, but I'm sorry, I don't know the times very precisely,
above all during that interrogation. [End of Audio #1, starting Audio #2.]
The more the confusion grew, the more I lost the sense of time. But I
didn't do my homework for a very long time. I was probably just reading the
first paragraph of what I had to read, when these policemen came to sit
near me, to ask me to help them by telling them who had ever entered in
our house. So I told them, okay, well there was this girlfriend of mine and
they said no no no, they only wanted to know about men. So I said okay,
here are the names of the people I know, but really I don't know, and they
said, names of anyone you saw nearby, so I said, there are some people that
are friends of the boys, or of the girls, whom I don't know very well,
and it went on like this, I kept on answering these questions, and finally
at one point, while I was talking to them, they said "Okay, we'll take
you into this other room." So I said okay and went with them, and they started
asking me to talk about what I had been doing that evening. At least, they
kept asking about the last time I saw Meredith, and then about everything
that happened the next morning, and we had to repeat again and again everything
about what I did. Okay, so I told them, but they always kept wanting times
and schedules, and time segments: "what did you do between 7 and 8?" "And
from 8 to 9? And from 9 to 10?" I said look, I can't be this precise, I
can tell you the flow of events, I played the guitar, I went to the house,
I looked at my e-mails, I read a book, and I was going on like this.
There were a lot people coming in and going out all the time, and there was
one policeman always in front of me, who kept going on about this. Then at
one point an interpreter arrived, and the interpreter kept on telling me,
try to remember the times, try to remember the times, times, times, times,
and I kept saying "I don't know. I remember the movie, I remember the dinner,
I remember what I ate," and she kept saying "How can you you remember this
thing but not that thing?" or "How can you not remember how you were dressed?"
because I was thinking, I had jeans, but were they dark or light, I just
can't remember. And then she said "Well, someone is telling us that you were
not at Raffaele's house. Raffaele is saying that at these times you were not
home." And I said, but what is he saying, that I wasn't there? I was there!
Maybe I can't say exactly what I was doing every second, every minute, because
I didn't look at the time. I know that I saw the movie, I ate dinner. And
she would say "No no no, you saw the film at this time, and then after that
time you went out of the house. You ate dinner with Raffaele, and then there
is this time where you did nothing, and this time where you were out of the
house. And I said, no, that's not how it was. I was always in Raffaele's
apartment.

[Ghirga, after his long discussion about interruptions above, actually
takes advantage of a tiny pause here to slip in: "Excuse me, excuse me, the
pubblico ministero wants to hear precise details about the suggestions about
what to say and the cuffs, who gave them to you."]

All right. What it was was a continuous crescendo of these discussions and
arguments, because while I was discussing with them, in the end they started
to little by little and then more and more these remarks about "We're not
convinced by you, because you seem to be able to remember one thing but not
remember another thing. We don't understand how you could take a shower
without seeing..." And then, they kept on asking me "Are you sure of what
you're saying? Are you sure? Are you sure? If you're not sure, we'll take
you in front of a judge, and you'll go to prison, if you're not telling the
truth." Then they told me this thing about how Raffaele was saying that
I had gone out of the house. I said look, it's impossible. I don't know if
he's really saying that or not, but look, I didn't go out of the house.
And they said "No, you're telling a lie. You'd better remember what you did
for real, because otherwise you're going to prison for 30 years because you're
a liar." I said no, I'm not a liar. And they said "Are you sure you're not
protecting someone?" I said no, I'm not protecting anyone. And they said
"We're sure you're protecting someone." Who, who, who, who did you meet when
you went out of Raffaele's house?" I didn't go out. "Yes, you did go out.
Who were you with?" I don't know. I didn't do anything. "Why didn't you
go to work?" Because my boss told me I didn't have to go to work. "Let's see
your telephone to see if you have that message." Sure, take it. "All right,
So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept
on yelling "We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?"
But I kept saying no, no, I didn't go out, I'm not pro-pro-pro---

[Ghirga again I think, slipping into a tiny hole created by her stammering
over the word "protecting" -- interestingly by the way, she stammered badly
over pronouncing this word earlier as well -- an Eyes for Lies red flag??]

Excuse me, okay, we understand that there was a continuous crescendo.

Yes.

As you said earlier. But if we could now get to the questions of the pubblico
ministero, otherwise it will really be impossible to avoid some interruptions.
If you want to be able to continue as tranquilly, as continuously as possible...

Okay, I'm sorry.

So, if you could get to the questions about exactly when, exactly who...these
suggestions, exactly what did they consist in? It seems to me...

Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said "Okay,
we have this message that you sent to Patrick", and I said I don't think I did,
and they yelled "Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here's your
message saying you wanted to meet him!" And I didn't even remember that I
had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying
that the message said I wanted to meet him. That was one thing. Then there
was the fact that there was this interpreter next to me, and she was telling
me "Okay, either you are an incredibly stupid liar, or you're not able to
remember anything you've done." So I said, how could that be? And she said,
"Maybe you saw something so tragic, so terrible that you can't remember it.
Because I had a terrible accident once where I broke my leg..."

The interpreter said this to you?

Yes.

I also wanted to ask you because it isn't clear to me: only the interpreter
spoke to you, or the others also?

All the others also.

Everyone was talking to you, all the others, but were they speaking in English?

No, in Italian.

In Italian. And you answered in Italian?

In Italian, in English...

And what was said to you in Italian, did it get translated to you in English?

A bit yes, a bit no, there was so much confusion, there were so many people
all talking at the same time, one saying "Maybe it was like this, maybe
you don't remember," another saying "No, she's a stupid liar," like that...

But everything was eventually translated, or you understood some of it and
answered right away?

It wasn't like an interrogation, like what we're doing now, where one person
asks me a question and I answer. No. There were so many people talking,
asking, waiting, and I answered a bit here and there.

All right. You were telling us that the interpreter was telling you about
something that had happened to her. [Interruption: Ghirga: This isn't
a spontaneous declaration now. This is an examination. That means the
pubblico ministero has asked you a question, always the same question, and
we still haven't really heard the answer to it.]

Yes, sorry.

Right, so you were saying that there was this continuous crescendo.

It's difficult for me to say that one specific person said one specific thing.
It was the fact that there were all these little suggestions, and someone
was saying that there was the telephone, then there was the fact that...
then more than anything what made me try to imagine something was someone
saying to me "Maybe you're confused, maybe you're confused and you should
try to remember something different. Try to find these memories that
obviously you have somehow lost. You have to try to remember them. So I
was there thinking, but what could I have forgotten? And I was thinking,
what have I forgotten? what have I forgotten? and they were shouting
"Come on, come on, come on, remember, remember, remember," and boom! on
my head. "Remember!" And I was like -- Mamma Mia! and then boom!

Excuse me, excuse me, please, excuse me...

Those were the cuffs.

[Voices: "This is impossible!" "Avoid thinking aloud!"]

[Ghirga:] So, the pubblico ministero asked you, and is still asking you,
who is the person that gave you these two blows that you just showed us
with a gesture?

It was a policewoman, but I didn't know their names.

Go ahead, pubblico ministero.

So, now, I asked you a question, and I did not get an answer. You ...
[interruptions! Ghirga: "I object to that remark! That is a personal
evaluation! Presidente! That is very suggestive. He is making an unacceptable
conclusion. He asked a question, but this is a personal opinion. It
seems to me that she did answer. She answered for a good five minutes."
"Sorry, but I thought we were supposed to avoid interruptions, that we weren't
supposed to interrupt when someone was speaking--" "But--" "Wait -- excuse
me, please, let's try to avoid these moments which don't help anybody and
probably harm the person undergoing the examination because they create
tension in the court--" Now Ghirga and Mignini are speaking at the same time
for quite a little moment -- Ghirga's voice is louder -- "Let's take the
answers as they come, later the right moment will come to say that from
this examination, you did not obtain the answer that you expected, that the
accused did not answer the questions. That is a later phase. At this
moment, let's stay with the answers that we have, even if they are not
exhaustive, and avoiding personal evaluations of their value. Go ahead,
publicco ministero, go ahead." "I would like to--" "Yes, yes, go ahead,
return to your question."]

The central point of that interrogation was the moment when the name of
Patrick emerged. You spoke of suggestions, you spoke of pressure, you spoke
of being hit, I asked you to give me a precise description of who gave
you the blows, you need to describe this person. Was it a woman or a man?
Who asked you the questions? Who was asking you the questions? There
was the interpreter, who was the person who was translating. But the exam,
the interrogation, who was doing it? Apart from the people who were going
in and out. You must have understood that there was a murder, and this
was a police station, and the investigation was hot, and what I am asking
you is, who was actually conducting the interrogation?

[Ghirga? not sure, softer voice. "The pubblico ministero is asking you,
you said that the two blows were given to me by someone whose name I don't
know. The pubblico ministero is asking you firstly if you can give a
description of the person who hit you, if you saw her, and if you can
give us a description. The second question --"]

So, when I -- the person who was conducting the interrogation --

That was the second question! You're starting with the second question,
that's fine, go ahead, go ahead.

Oh, sorry...

Go on, go on. The person who was conducting the interrogation...

Well, there were lots and lots of people who were asking me questions, but
the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long
hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don't know her. Then in the circle of
people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example
there was a man who was holding my telephone, and who was literally
shoving the telephone into my face, shouting "Look at this telephone!
Who is this? Who did you want to meet?" Then there were others, for instance
this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was
standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really surrounding
me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting
on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn't see
who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I
turned around and saw that woman, and she gave me another blow to the head.

This was the same woman with the long hair?

Yes, the same one.

All right. Are you finished? Tell me if you have something to add.


Well, I already answered.

Fine, fine, all right. So I'll go on with the questions. In the minutes
it mentions three people, plus the interpreter. Now, you first said
that they suggested things to you. What exactly do you mean by the word
"suggestion", because from your description, I don't see any suggestion.
I mean, what is meant by the Italian word "suggerimento", I don't find it.

[Ghirga: "Excuse me, excuse me, please, please, excuse me, excuse me! Listen,
the pubblico ministero is asking you: "suggestions", you also mentioned
words that were "put in your mouth", versions, things to say, circumstances
to describe. The pubblico ministero is asking two things: who made the
suggestions, and what exactly were you told to say?]

All right. It seems to me that the thoughts of the people standing around me,
there were so many people, and they suggested things to me in the sense that
they would ask questions like: "Okay, you met someone!" No, I didn't.
They would say "Yes you did, because we have this telephone here, that
says that you wanted to meet someone. You wanted to meet him." No, I don't
remember that. "Well, you'd better remember, because if not we'll put
you in prison for 30 years." But I don't remember! "Maybe it was him that
you met? Or him? You can't remember?" It was this kind of suggestion.

When you say they said "Maybe you met him?", did they specify names? Well,
the important fact was this message to Patrick, they were very excited about
it. So they wanted to know if I had received a message from him --

Please, please! [Interruptions, multiple yelling: "It's not possible to go
on this way!" "Please, please, excuse me, excuse me!" "I'm going to ask
to suspend the audience! I demand a suspension of five minutes!"
"Excuse me, excuse me!" "Please!" "Viva Dio, Presidente!" "Presidente,
I'm trying to do a cross-examination, and I must have the conditions that
allow me to do it! The defense keeps interrupting." "Excuse me, excuse me,
please--" "We're asking for a suspension!" "Presidente, you've heard all
the demands, please decide." "Please--" "Pubblico ministero, please wait!"
Several moments of silence, during which Amanda murmurs in a very tiny
voice: "Scusa." "I want to point out that the accused offers answers to
every question. She could always refuse to respond. She is answering, and
that doesn't mean she has to be asked about the same circumstances again
and again. She is not a witness. The accused goes under different rules.
We have to give the answers--" "But--" "Please, please! We have to accept
the answers given by the accused. She can stop answering at any time.
At some point we simply have to move on to different questions. One
circumstance is being asked again, the accused answered. The rituality
of the court, of the process, has to be respected. The pubblico ministero
was asking about suggestions. [To Amanda] If you want a suspension we
can do it right away." "No, I'm fine." So the pubblico ministero was asking
about the suggestions. All right?" "Sure."]

So, were you the one who gave the first indication, who first introduced
this name "Patrick"?

It was because of the fact that they were saying that I apparently had
met someone and they said this because of the message, and they were saying
"Are you sure you don't remember meeting THIS person, because you wrote
this message."

In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?

No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said "Va bene.
Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata."

But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message
to whom it was written?

Actually, I don't know if that information is in the telephone. But I told
them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in
the telephone, but they couldn't find it, but they found the one I sent to
him.

[Someone else] I also wanted to ask you for the pubblico ministero, you wrote
this message in Italian. I wanted to ask you, since you are an English
speaker, what do you do when you wrote in Italian? Do you first think in
English, and then translate into Italian, or do you manage to think
directly in Italian?

No, at that time, I first thought in English, then I would translate, and
then write.

So that clarifies that phrase. Go ahead, pubblico ministero, but I think
we've exhausted the question.

Yes, yes. I just wanted one concept to be clear: that in the Italian language,
"suggerire" means "indicate", someone who "suggests" a name actually says
the name and the other person adopts it. That is what "suggerimento" is,
and I...so my question is, did the police first pronounce the name of Patrick,
or was it you? And was it pronounced after having seen the message in the
phone, or just like that, before that message was seen?

Objection! Objection! On page 95, I read--

Before the objection, what was the question?

The question was: the question that was objected was about the term
"suggerimento". Because I interpret that word this way: the police say
"Was it Patrick?" and she confirms that it was Patrick. This is suggestion
in the Italian language.

Excuse me, please, excuse me. Let's return to the accused. What was the
suggestion, because I thought I had understood that the suggestion consisted
in the fact that Patrick Lumumba, to whom the message was addressed, had
been identified, they talked about "him, him, him". In what terms exactly
did they talk about this "him"? What did they say to you?

So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the message --

You mean, they wanted a name relative to something.

Of the person I had written to, precisely. And they told me that I knew,
and that I didn't want to tell. And that I didn't want to tell because I
didn't remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about
this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying "Look
what a stupid liar you are, you don't even remember this!" At first, I
didn't even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter
next to me who kept saying "Maybe you don't remember, maybe you don't
remember, but try," and other people were saying "Try, try, try to remember
that you met someone, and I was there hearing "Remember, remember, remember,"
and then there was this person behind me who -- it's not that she actually
really physically hurt me, but she frightened me...

"Remember!" is not a suggestion. It is a strong solicitation of your memory.
Suggestion is...

But it was always "Remember" following this same idea, that...

But they didn't literally say that it was him!

No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We know who it is, we know
who it is. You were with him, you met him."

So, these were the suggestions.

Yes.

Pubblico ministero, I object here on the dynamics, because...[arguing]

I contest it because in the minutes of the Dec 17 interrogation, page 95,
you say: The police could not have suggested-- [Tremendous arguing and
yelling, some saying that they need to know the exact page, it's different
in their version, others that the pubblico ministero should not be
interrupted, others that the reading should not be interrupted...]

End of Audio #2


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
thoughtful wrote:
FINN, looking over the testimony, I am CERTAIN that Amanda is saying that she called her mother at 12:47 and didn't hear Raffaele calling his sister (at 12:51) because she was still on the phone with her mother. And this was BEFORE the police arrived, she is definitely saying this. Her lawyer also led her to add that some other officers arrived after the door had been broken down and the postal police had sent everyone outside. (Presumably these were the carabinieri, but we hear no more about them.) She is using your timeline, the impossible one, for certain! Maybe she read it on here?


Thanks, Thoughtful - that's very interesting. I must admit, I haven't had time to listen to the audio files, so I have to go by what you and others say.

So we can just observe that there is a minute and a half between the end of her phone call to Edda, and the beginning of the phone call from Raffaele to his sister. And of course in the normal run of events, there would be no problem with getting this kind of detail wrong.

But there IS a problem when the other scenario has you putting down the phone to your ma, with the police already in the house, and telling Raffaele he'd better phone the police quick. That's not the time to start getting hazy with the details, and claiming to have been on the phone at a point when the cellphone records contradict you, and support the other story.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
To me, looking at Amanda's difficulty over that question, it seems as if she's overlooked the problem coming from the direction she least expected it - her own mother. (And we can also hear from the weekend's testimony that Edda herself, quite early on, raised the question of why Amanda phoned her at that point.)


I see. I didn't know the email she sent to her friends was part of the trial so that she had to match her testimony to that. I thought she could just go by the phone records and create a believable story around those. Her mother's testimony will be interesting then!


Yes, I agree. Of course we know there are 10 000 pages of evidence, with the email amongst them, but it was only at the weekend that the email was really introduced into the case. And - more or less - Amanda is reiterating what she said in the email, except now it's in court and for real. I think that's going to make things very interesting indeed.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am
Posts: 257
Location: Seattle
[quote="thoughtful"]Hi everyone. I'm posting audio segments 1 and 2 (out of 8) from the Saturday cross-examination. I admit it, I skipped 8-12 from
Friday because I found Ghirga was being a bit too nice, I wanted to hear Mignini. I'm going to complete the Saturday audios
first.

Thoughtful - th-) gb-)

Really appreciate your efforts here, since the only Italian I could understand was "Mama Mia!"

Thanks for your time on the translation and typing!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 314
Location: England
Thoughtful - you're a star on this board. It must have taken you ages to translate and document this. Simply brilliant.

_________________
Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
For thoughtful: gb-)

Except that it should say "great job"! Thanks for taking the time to provide us with these transcripts. I get a headache just reading them! I think Mignini may have been splitting hairs; yet, at the same time it is difficult to come away with a firm sense of exactly what happened in light of AK's unfinished sentences and repetition and her lawyer's interruptions (after complaining about them!). And the physical brutality turns out to be one or two slaps to the back of the head; and we don't even know who did that. Mama Mia! It would be great to have transcripts or tapes of the session. AK is maddenly vague on some points.

What strikes me overall is that her cool performance here is at odds with what she says happened on Nov 5/6. Well, that and the discrepancies with the phone records.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm
Posts: 231
Location: US
Thanks so much Thoughtful for the translation!

Wow, is it me or does it seem like Ghirga suggested Amanda suspend the answers? I'll read it again. In any case, I imagine the guy went home to a couple asprin and a stiff drink. p-))


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Mrs. Darcy wrote:

Quote:
Again, innocent people don't get confused about whether or not they were present at a murder; that is just the stupidest thing imaginable, that someone could be fooled into believing that. We are not talking about an impressionable child here, after all, or someone who is mentally challenged or insane.


Welcome, Mrs. Darcy. One of the most bizarre statements made by AK this weekend was that it suddenly dawned on her that what she imagined was wrong. I think the performance in the courtoom was perhaps intended to take the focus away from the absurdity of some of these claims.



Yes, it's pretty amazing the way some people suspend logic in cases like this, where murder is involved. People are forced to confront a degree of malice and brutality that is so beyond what is normal or reasonable that they start to doubt the very idea of normalcy and they are hesitant to apply normal ideas of behavior to the characters involved. This is a big mistake because what is reasonable and normal is the very foundation of any kind of ability to discern the difference between deception and truth. AK's behavior was not, under the circumstances, normal or the kind of behavior attributable to innocence. Her weepy mother can attribute all kinds of rational reasons for her daughter's irrational behavior, but an objective bystander should be able to see the odd behavior for what it is, having no emotional reason to convince himself otherwise.

And the idea that in such a short period of time the authorities could convince AK that she didn't remember whether she was a party to this crime or not defies logic. Had I been her attorney, I would nonetheless have promoted the idea she is mentally ill, bipolar or something, which explains her odd behavior (cartwheels in the police state, lack of sexual inhibitions, pleasure-seeking, etc.)...this would at least have been more tenable than the "I was just so confused" theory.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 377
Edda Mellas said she spoke with her daughter on the phone as Amanda became concerned about Kercher's whereabouts.

"When she got out of the shower, she noticed a few drops of blood in the bathroom and she thought that was odd, but she still wasn't alarmed. She thought it was odd that maybe somebody had cut themselves and not cleaned up. She went and got Raffaele and was telling him about the front door being open and there was blood. She brought him back and it was then that they looked around and started to knock on Meredith's door. She called all of their roommates. She tried figuring out what's going on and she called me at that point in time. I told her 'you need to hang up and call the police,' which they did," said Edda.


This is Google's cache of http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=88182. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 10, 2009 06:51:17 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 am
Posts: 45
Location: California, US
I also would like to thank Thoughtful for all the extra time and effort you are putting in to translate the audios for all of us who don't understand Italian. th-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Jeff the engineer wrote:

Quote:
It is obvious to me that this board is not quite as neutral as I first thought it was. I did expose a major error in your timeline in the brief day or so I have been here so hopefully everyone has benefited from my brief postings.


Michael acknowledged the error, which in my opinion is less major than you make it out to be. You seem a bit hasty in your judgement of this board, since you have spent so little time here - just a brief day by your own reckoning.

Believe it or not, the question of motive has been discussed amply here, and I would be willing to wager that justlooking knows what he's talking about when it comes to the subject of what matters in a court of law. So do many other people.

I would be glad to defer to you or another expert on matters pertaining to software engineering, but when it comes to logic, I only defer to the force of the better argument, backed up by facts. What JL wrote about motive was spot on. If you have a substantive quibble with it, then state your case. But why attack the board?


Weeelll...'sort of'. Actually, I was well aware of that entry in the Timeline, as were many others here. It was always acknowledged that slot required a degree of confirmation, which required a 'wait and see' element of what was raised in the trial regarding the mop and bucket. Now, the first time we may have expected to hear about it, was when the postal police testified. They didn't raise the mop and bucket, so it was considered the issue may be raised when the forensic data was presented in the trial (weeks after the Police Postale testimony). It wasn't mentioned then, but there was another opportunity for the matter to be broached during Knox's testimony on the stand. It was a case of..let's see what, if any, confirmation emerges. As it happens, no mention of AK or RS holding a mop was made and we are now at the stage in the trial where we can say, if it isn't raised by now, it won't be.

It can now be removed, but...it has only 'now' become valid for removal for the above reasons.

Up until that time, it was justified to be in the Timeline, because of the heavy chatter about the movement of the mop in the diaries of RS and AK (chatter that still remains by the way), combined with a news report about the Police Postale witnessing them holding a mop outside the cottage, reported just before the trial. There also was indeed, a mop outside of the cottage, that's in the photos. The 'holding' part of the mop can now be removed, but that has only 'just' become the case as the trial has only just revealed that to be the case, but the mop is still a major clue that carries serious question marks. Therefore, there is no big error that has been exposed here. All that's been exposed, is that a Timeline that pertains to a murder case that is still ongoing is, like the case itself, emerging, growing and subject to change. That we knew already.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: That first phone call to Edda Mellas
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:59 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
To me, looking at Amanda's difficulty over that question, it seems as if she's overlooked the problem coming from the direction she least expected it - her own mother. (And we can also hear from the weekend's testimony that Edda herself, quite early on, raised the question of why Amanda phoned her at that point.)


I see. I didn't know the email she sent to her friends was part of the trial so that she had to match her testimony to that. I thought she could just go by the phone records and create a believable story around those. Her mother's testimony will be interesting then!



Lancelotti, maybe she can...go by the phone records, but at the same time, she can't simply ignore all the things she said before in various places.

Otherwise, wouldn't life be just grand for criminals? 'Hey, yeah, just give me all the records and I'll match my story with those, just ignore all the other crap I said 'before' I saw the records, there's a good chap!'

We can't ignore them either, neither can the court.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
mrsdarcy wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Hi Mrsdarcy,

The pics you may have seen of Meredith's room all show a lot of blood and are actual photo's of the scene.

There are two kinds of pics from the bathroom:

Some show the real scene, spots and smears of blood on the faucett etc, the bloody footprint on the bathmat but these are all minor compared to the scene in Meredith's room.

After the forensic team had collected the obvious samples of blood which were visible in the bathroom, they applied luminol to try and expose any blood stains which may not have been visible to the naked eye.

The pink pics of the bathroom come from after the time they applied the luminol.

They don't show the luminol in action which reveals blood under an ultra violet light.

The just show where the luminol was applied and were taken after the forensics team had finished their biz.

In short, the pink is used luminol and not blood.


Thanks, I figured the pink was the result of some kind of chemical reaction because this would have been a total bloodbath scene otherwise...but it still looked like there was plenty of blood smears in the bathroom, enough to completely spook the average person. It would take very little blood to give me the heebie-jeebies, especially if it was here and there and in particular on the walls, rather than concentrated in one spot.

But, of course, it's all about the cleanup...that's the main issue.


I missed that...thanks for clarifying and ending that one.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:08 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Brian S. wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
naming PL is a way of keeping the authorities at an arm's length until she can get her story straight, a way to get them off her case, which only a guilty person would need to do.


My thoughts exactly.

When she walked into the police station that night she had an alibi in Raffaele.

An hour later a policeman comes out of the room where Raffaele is being interviewed and informs her that Raffele has just said she went out at 9:00 and didn't come home until 1:00.

She must have been gobsmacked and lost for words.

EDIT to add: If she was innocent she would have had no hesitation in turning around and saying, "Well, he's a liar then!!".


That's exactly what the prosecution and numerous judges thought too.

In fact, it actually forms part of the content of the judgement of charges against Amanda, here outlined in charge F.

Judge Micheli wrote:
(F)
of the offence to which articles 81, 368.2 and 61(2) Penal Code apply because with multiple actions carried out under the same criminal design, knowing him innocent, with a claim arising during the course of statements rendered to the Flying Squad and to the Police Headquarters of Perugia on the date of 6 November 2007, falsely accused Diya Lumumba called "Patrick" of the felony of murder in detriment of the young Meredith Kercher, all to the end of obtaining impunity for all and in particular for Rudy Hermann Guede, he also of colour like Lumumba

facts having taken place in Perugia on the night between 5 and 6 November 2007



THE CHARGES

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Great Job Thoughtfull Yay-)

A few thoughts:

The questioning during the whole two tapes only really covered two points.

Why and who came to "hit" Amanda?

Did the police suggest "Patrick's name"?

I didn't read much into Amanda describing the events leading up to the evening of Nov 1st , but then came the issue of why Amanda turned off her phone. At face value Mignini is splitting hairs between what AK is saying in court and what was written in the December transcript but it created a situation which Ghirga objected too. I assume both he and Mignini were reading the same document. :lol:

He objects to Mignini repeating questions and interrupting the witness before she can answer, several times and it gets angry before Mignini is obliged to step back from the issue of why Amanda switched off her phone. But on the basis that Mignini was reading the same words as Ghirga if not from the same page he must have known he was splitting hairs from the get go.

But he has obliged Massei to step in and rule that Amanda must be allowed to answer questions without constant interruptions. Was this an intentional ploy by Mignini? Did he want to create the situation where Amanda would answer his real questions without the constant interruptions by the defenses which had interfeered with the previous days cross examinations.

When Mignini then asked Amanda to explain how she came to be hit at the interrogation she launched into a description of the whole interview.

Ghirga could only watch in exasperation as the ruling which he had obtained prevented him from stopping Amanda describing the whole event.
He tried to stop her three or four times by attempting to tell Amanda she was answering more than she had been asked for but she didn't pick up on his hint and Mignini lead her straight back into continuing her narrative from where she left of before Ghirga had spoken to her.

I think Mignini ably demonstrated that there was little untoward about that questioning session at all. Amanda told the judges all about it and Ghirga couldn't stop her.

Look at all those long paragraphs after the short ones at the start in Thoughtfulls translation. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:57 pm
Posts: 19
The most interesting thing to me about this case is the number of people that could have called the police at a close time to the murder, and they did not. The cab driver who told his friends at the bar that he ran into the 3? according to his description Amanda was holding a knife above her head with both hands! Apparently he also heard noises coming from the house. Also, the woman who heard screams and then people running. Again, I have to be upfront and admit that I am a Reasonable person, and any reasonable person looks at all the evidence and happenings and can only conclude these 2 people are guilty. Also, I am getting sick and tired of hearing Amanda say she made love to Raffi. Love's got nuttin to do with it, girl. Trust me on that one, LOL. I digress, though. Did I read right, or has Amanda now denied also being at that store in the morning purchasing things? A lot of people are lying. Cabbie, store owner, police. Funny thing is, all thoise people have no reason to lie. They just happen to get pulled into this mess. They have no horse in the game to begin with. The police end up being on the side of justice, and they want the perpetrators to pay. Raffi alo not taking the stand will cook his goose. Would it not be funny if Hw was found guilty and Amanda was found innocent?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
Forgive me if this has already been posted I don't want to appear confused or under pressure by suggesting that it hasn't been....

But, it appears some letters from AK to RS in prison were leaked to the Daily Mail...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... -cell.html

Here's a sampling...

"She [Amanda]went on to tell him she would like him to visit her in Seattle, Washington.

Her letter included a self-penned poem entitled 'I Have Only One Life' as well as a poem written by a friend about interrogation and being 'cuffed to the truth'.

But it appears any romance between the couple has ended. in another letter, dated February 18, she tells him that she cannot give him her 'heart completely' because she has returned to her ex-boyfriend, American photographer David Johnsrud.

She writes: 'I'm sorry for you and that in this time I've steered myself back to the love that I knew.

'But I can give you my hand, shoulder, my ear, my time, my pen, my thoughts, my smiles, my silly pink paper...'

Of their short-lived relationship she writes that they could have had 'something special' before the 'whole world suddenly threw us into an experience we didn't deserve and we were cut off from each other'.

.......................................................
What about those poems?
"CUFFED TO THE TRUTH?" v-))
"I HAVE ONLY ONE LIFE?"
Isn't that latter one ripped off from Nathan Hale? I regret that I have but one life...
Or perhaps it was taken from the American soap opera..."One Life to Live" :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
The 411 wrote:
Forgive me if this has already been posted I don't want to appear confused or under pressure by suggesting that it hasn't been....

But, it appears some letters from AK to RS in prison were leaked to the Daily Mail...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... -cell.html

Here's a sampling...

"She [Amanda]went on to tell him she would like him to visit her in Seattle, Washington.

Her letter included a self-penned poem entitled 'I Have Only One Life' as well as a poem written by a friend about interrogation and being 'cuffed to the truth'.

But it appears any romance between the couple has ended. in another letter, dated February 18, she tells him that she cannot give him her 'heart completely' because she has returned to her ex-boyfriend, American photographer David Johnsrud.

She writes: 'I'm sorry for you and that in this time I've steered myself back to the love that I knew.

'But I can give you my hand, shoulder, my ear, my time, my pen, my thoughts, my smiles, my silly pink paper...'

Of their short-lived relationship she writes that they could have had 'something special' before the 'whole world suddenly threw us into an experience we didn't deserve and we were cut off from each other'.

.......................................................
What about those poems?
"CUFFED TO THE TRUTH?" v-))
"I HAVE ONLY ONE LIFE?"
Isn't that latter one ripped off from Nathan Hale? I regret that I have but one life...
Or perhaps it was taken from the American soap opera..."One Life to Live" :?



Ah 411,

Aren't they sweet.

Poor Raffaele.

Those letters were written for the benefit of the police who would read them and someone else who would leak them to the press.

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WAITING FOR GODOT
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
FLEngineer wrote:


That's exactly my point. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution. For the life of me I can't imagne a plausible motive, which is my problem with the prosecution's case for homicide.


I know the idea of motive has been discussed practically to death, but I'll just say this: I agree with Mrsdarcy that motive can be an *important* part of a prosecutor's case. The significant thing to remember, though, is that it is not a *necessary* part --- there's a distinction.

As for FLEngineer's statement that he can't "[f]or the life of [him] imag[i]ne a plausible motive," here's something that I have wondered:

Maybe AK and RS met RG at the cottage to take some drugs. Maybe they were really riding high and were wanting to go buy more drugs but didn't have enough cash on hand. Maybe they took cash from MK's room. Maybe MK came home, noticed her cash missing, and was also really irritated at the loud and obnoxious behavior of the three, especially because she wanted to study. Maybe she accused Amanda of being a "drugged-up tart." Maybe RS, having some weird suppressed violent tendencies, starting attacking MK with a knife that had been brought over for some other reason (maybe to retrieve drugs, as Catnip had suggested at one point). Maybe AK, having been jealous of MK for some time and also feeling completely besotted by RS, went along with things. Maybe RG, high as a kite, also went along with things and even decided to sexually assault Meredith while he had the chance.

This is all complete speculation, but I don't see it as outside the realm of possibility. I think you can't underestimate the *possibility* that hard drugs may have played a large role in this crime.

I also agree with Mrsdarcy as to her take on why Amanda accused Patrick - she needed to find a way to explain why she was at the cottage, because she feared that someone may have placed her there.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Truth Seeker wrote:
....Maybe AK and RS met RG at the cottage to take some drugs. Maybe they were really riding high and were wanting to go buy more drugs but didn't have enough cash on hand. Maybe they took cash from MK's room. Maybe MK came home, noticed her cash missing, and was also really irritated at the loud and obnoxious behavior of the three, especially because she wanted to study. Maybe she accused Amanda of being a "drugged-up tart." Maybe RS, having some weird suppressed violent tendencies, starting attacking MK with a knife that had been brought over for some other reason (maybe to retrieve drugs, as Catnip had suggested at one point). Maybe AK, having been jealous of MK for some time and also feeling completely besotted by RS, went along with things. Maybe RG, high as a kite, also went along with things and even decided to sexually assault Meredith while he had the chance.

This idea has been much discussed. It's even been used to explain the knives. Rudy made a strange comment in his German Diary, apparently asking Amanda "Was it all of you downstairs?".

Giacomo grew cannabis plants. He'd asked Meredith to feed the cat and water the plants while he was away, thats why he left her his keys.

The suggestion has been made that Giacomo's keys were taken from Meredith's room by AK and RS in the afternoon. They came back later in Raffaele's car along with Rudy and a knife to cut down and steal the boys plants. Take them back to Rudy's to later sell in Perugia. A nice little earner for Amanda if she felt she would soon be short of money.

Trouble was the plan fell through because Meredith heard them when they came in downstairs and she went downstairs to investigate. Maybe she thought one of the guys had come back? Events went downhill when she discovered RG, AK and RS holding a knife and eyeing up Giacomo's plants?

There are various versions on this theme if FLengineer is still seeking a motive. Maybe Meredith threatened to call the police on "the drugged up tart" who had taken the keys from her room.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Occam's Razor
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:41 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
I've just had a quick peek over at Frank's, against my better judgement. The same old tired line continues to be trotted out...'Occam's Razor'.

These people clearly don't understand Occam. If all the evidence shows multiple people were present and committed a crime, then Occam would therefore say, multiple people committed the crime, as that is the simplest explanation for the 'evidence'. To go through various intellectual gymnastics in order to bypass, ignore or contort the evidence with a whole range of ludicrous and self serving devices in order to reach an agenda driven conclusion, goes against absolutely everything Occam stands for and would have him turning in his grave.

The simplest explanation must match the evidence, or it is no explanation. The simplest explanation in this case therefore, is that multiple individuals assaulted and murdered Meredith. That is what the evidence shows and that therefore is Occam's Razor in motion.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:46 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Brian S. wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
....Maybe AK and RS met RG at the cottage to take some drugs. Maybe they were really riding high and were wanting to go buy more drugs but didn't have enough cash on hand. Maybe they took cash from MK's room. Maybe MK came home, noticed her cash missing, and was also really irritated at the loud and obnoxious behavior of the three, especially because she wanted to study. Maybe she accused Amanda of being a "drugged-up tart." Maybe RS, having some weird suppressed violent tendencies, starting attacking MK with a knife that had been brought over for some other reason (maybe to retrieve drugs, as Catnip had suggested at one point). Maybe AK, having been jealous of MK for some time and also feeling completely besotted by RS, went along with things. Maybe RG, high as a kite, also went along with things and even decided to sexually assault Meredith while he had the chance.

This idea has been much discussed. It's even been used to explain the knives. Rudy made a strange comment in his German Diary, apparently asking Amanda "Was it all of you downstairs?".

Giacomo grew cannabis plants. He'd asked Meredith to feed the cat and water the plants while he was away, thats why he left her his keys.

The suggestion has been made that Giacomo's keys were taken from Meredith's room by AK and RS in the afternoon. They came back later in Raffaele's car along with Rudy and a knife to cut down and steal the boys plants. Take them back to Rudy's to later sell in Perugia. A nice little earner for Amanda if she felt she would soon be short of money.

Trouble was the plan fell through because Meredith heard them when they came in downstairs and she went downstairs to investigate. Maybe she thought one of the guys had come back? Events went downhill when she discovered RG, AK and RS holding a knife and eyeing up Giacomo's plants?

There are various versions on this theme if FLengineer is still seeking a motive. Maybe Meredith threatened to call the police on "the drugged up tart" who had taken the keys from her room.


Or, it could be as simple as, they bumped into Rudy on the way back to the cottage, invited him back for a smoke, for a drink, or to hook him up with Meredith,...whatever. Meredith kicked off, as being tired she wanted a quiet evening and had to do her essay, things became heated and escelated from there.

There are many scenarios. Unfortunately, the only people who know for sure are those who were in the cottage that evening and they are either dead or aren't talking.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Thoughtful great post again!!....I actually look forward to your coming posts.

th-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
kredsox wrote:
Cabbie, store owner, police. Funny thing is, all those people have no reason to lie. They just happen to get pulled into this mess. They have no horse in the game to begin with.


as a "virtual juror" myself ...I agree with this statement. I've been a witness before , and its just because? make the community better? IDK..volunteered.
just something most people do for no reason other than trying to help things become right.

I don't know how much help it is at times. and then the defense looks into the credibility thing and shooting holes in the info. as their supposed to do.

there are some whackos I guess that want to get attention or something, and there's always the paid-witnesses in a corruption case.

but in general they have no horse in the race. and they would be very powerful testimony to me, if I was a juror.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
The 411 wrote:

Her letter included a self-penned poem entitled 'I Have Only One Life'



Based on the literary masterpiece that is "Baby Brother," I suspect that Amanda will not be in the running for the next U.S. Poet Laureate.

(Okay - that was mean of me. But seriously - that short story was some low-quality reading material. :lol: )

Maybe it's one of those one-liner poems: "In the four walls of my prison, suppressing the truth which has arisen." ;)

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
I'm looking up Raffaele "comments" and came across this.

Nov 4, 2007-

Raffaele had spent the night at his own house on the other side of the city with his girlfriend, Meredith's American flatmate Amanda Knox, 22.

He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.

"The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower."


Did anyone ever confirm who this friend was?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
JFK wrote:

Quote:
I'm looking up Raffaele "comments" and came across this.

Nov 4, 2007-

Raffaele had spent the night at his own house on the other side of the city with his girlfriend, Meredith's American flatmate Amanda Knox, 22.

He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.

"The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower."

Did anyone ever confirm who this friend was?


My guess? The police tried and it turned out there was no "friend". Hence the switch to a second alibi: we were at my place all night and did not go out. Subsequently replaced by: Amanda went to meet friends at Le Chic and I stayed home and surfed the Internet... subsequently replaced by.... etc.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Truthseeker wrote:

Quote:
Based on the literary masterpiece that is "Baby Brother," I suspect that Amanda will not be in the running for the next U.S. Poet Laureate.


Which may be why she has decided to focus on acting rather than creative writing. :lol:

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
JFK wrote:

Quote:
I'm looking up Raffaele "comments" and came across this.

Nov 4, 2007-

Raffaele had spent the night at his own house on the other side of the city with his girlfriend, Meredith's American flatmate Amanda Knox, 22.

He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.

"The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower."

Did anyone ever confirm who this friend was?


My guess? The police tried and it turned out there was no "friend". Hence the switch to a second alibi: we were at my place all night and did not go out. Subsequently replaced by: Amanda went to meet friends at Le Chic and I stayed home and surfed the Internet... subsequently replaced by.... etc.


I was trying to do two things.
1) find out what his most recent "alibi" is for the Nov 1.
2) get a timeline on the story changing. and see what that looks like in its entirety, leading up to 1). most recent.

its a hard search because there's so much if I search Rafaelle!! a tidal wave of matches comes up.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
JFK wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
JFK wrote:


Quote:
I'm looking up Raffaele "comments" and came across this.

Nov 4, 2007-

Raffaele had spent the night at his own house on the other side of the city with his girlfriend, Meredith's American flatmate Amanda Knox, 22.

He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.

"The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower."

Did anyone ever confirm who this friend was?


My guess? The police tried and it turned out there was no "friend". Hence the switch to a second alibi: we were at my place all night and did not go out. Subsequently replaced by: Amanda went to meet friends at Le Chic and I stayed home and surfed the Internet... subsequently replaced by.... etc.


I was trying to do two things.
1) find out what his most recent "alibi" is for the Nov 1.
2) get a timeline on the story changing. and see what that looks like in its entirety, leading up to 1). most recent.

its a hard search because there's so much if I search Rafaelle!! a tidal wave of matches comes up.


Every source I trust says that the last known "alibi" is that AK went out to meet friends and RS stayed home alone. Last summer, his father "hinted" that, under certain circumstances, RS might "remember" that AK was, after all, with him all night.

(NB: You see what we're dealing with here, right?)

I can say that you nailed the first story, which was published before RS was a suspect, based on an interview with a British journalist (Kate Mansey is her name) who was just looking for someone willing to talk to her. RS volunteered!

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
JFK wrote:

Quote:
kredsox wrote:
Cabbie, store owner, police. Funny thing is, all those people have no reason to lie. They just happen to get pulled into this mess. They have no horse in the game to begin with.


as a "virtual juror" myself ...I agree with this statement. I've been a witness before , and its just because? make the community better? IDK..volunteered.
just something most people do for no reason other than trying to help things become right.

I don't know how much help it is at times. and then the defense looks into the credibility thing and shooting holes in the info. as their supposed to do.

there are some whackos I guess that want to get attention or something, and there's always the paid-witnesses in a corruption case.

but in general they have no horse in the race. and they would be very powerful testimony to me, if I was a juror.


I think this is critical. I look at the media spin in the same way: if a particular journalist or interested, high-profile party (Anne Bremner and Doug Preston come to mind) takes a position, I ask what horse they have in the race. I look at the money trail, and weigh their words accordingly. As the French say: à qui profite le crime?

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
Interesting person, this Amanda Knox. She has a job, and her boss tells her she doesn't need to come into work because it's not that busy, but it might get busier later, so she might have to come in. What is her response? She turns off her phone. Would you really do this if you had a job and you wanted or expected to keep? I think she knew her job was doomed, and her turning off her phone was a way of saying: "Screw the job." Wasn't there some talk that Patrick wanted to hire MK to do Amanda's job. If Amanda knew or suspected this, this would constitute a very real motive, especially for a female used to controlling men with her wiles. MK becomes her immediate rival and also a stark reminder of Amanda's own defects because MK's natural warmth and decency have gained PL's respect. Perhaps Amanda confronted MK about this, in the presence of RS and RG, and these two men, under her power, assimilated her anger and jealousy. Maybe they started out wanting to teach "little Miss Goody-two-shoes" a lesson and went too far, past the point of no return...I don't think they set out to kill MK; they "let her die" out of a sense of self-preservation.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:51 am
Posts: 64
Location: U.S. Nebraska
WHY IS NOBODY DISCUSSING THE PROSECUTOR JULIANO MENINI??

I believe the prosecutor Juliano Menini is to blame for this frenzy, ignoring the true crime that took poor Kercher from this world.
Satanic rituals?? Seriously? Not a solid motive when neither defendants have ANY history of following satanic religions. There is no motive. There is no murder weapon. This satanic ritual story came from Menini only. His fantasy case? Convicted killer Rudy Gideau even admitted to being in the apartment and having sex with Kercher and THEN left town the next day....hello? There ya go! We have our murderer. Rudy claims he went to the bathroom and in that small time, someone came in and murdered her. So he leaves. ?? What kind of person would leave the scene if they didn't do it? Rudy only later changed his story due to the interrogators (Menini) WANTING/Forcing Knox and her boyfriend to be part of the scandal, so he later added in that Amanda and Roffeolou had killed Kercher over money. NO MENTION OF SATANIC rituals!! Yet.....the prosecution is still claiming satanic motives. Where is the proof?
Menini is even under his own investigations for misconduct of the law. Menini has a history of using the satanic theory to solve previous murders. His source for the satanic rituals: a woman who talks to the dead. Check it out people! Menini is the cause behind this frenzy. Sad Sad Man.

Good Video to Watch explaining Menini and his odd manners of prosecuting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxhFJN6aq-g

There are a total of 6 videos covering this. The one I posted is number 5. Please watch all of them. Amanda and Raffaele deserve to be free. It is sad that the Italian justice system works the way it does.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Eek! I would definitely suggest that no one respond to the previous post, which puts our courteous and literate members Lancelotti, jfk and FLEngineer totally in the shade. Spelling worthy of Frank's, but not here....

To all those who have been so nice about my translations, I can tell you that I am totally addicted to this! I could just listen to the
tapes of course, but I feel I would retain just a vague impression without the complete detail, and also I would forget exactly what was said over time. This is the most complete piece of information that has come our way and I find it just fascinating, and also to see Mignini, a real professional, at work. I don't always agree with his approach (hairsplitting), but that's my amateurish opinion and I feel the iron hand in the velvet glove. Was it Brian who suggested that he actually interrupted Amanda on purpose to provoke the whole "no interruptions" episode in order to prevent Ghirga from intervening to help Amanda? Machiavellian!

I'm also keen to compare this testimony with our timeslines and guesses at what might be said on the stand.

I believe that there are plenty of elements of truth in what Amanda says (and Rudy also). The difficulty is to pick them out. I have to say I completely believe her description of what happened during that first interrogation. I never thought for one moment that the police treated her with calm politeness. If they did, they would never get any information from any criminal. It doesn't sound to me like the police went beyond the bounds of what they usually do. I believe her description, but it underlines the suspiciousness of her suddenly breaking down like that. I'm pretty sure that none of this screaming, shouting and telling me to remember would cause me to suddenly have visions... Of course, I have never been in that situation so I can't be sure, and there are more fragile people than me, but I continue to find that breakdown very telling. I don't think Mignini used the best tactic when he argued that "suggestion" necessarily meant using Patrick's name, or when he said that shouting "Remember! remember!" (about a specific fact, namely "remember that you went out with someone that night") constitutes merely a strong appeal to memory but not a suggestion. I would have preferred to hear him say: "But even if they screamed and shouted and even whacked you on the head twice but not enough to hurt as you said, why did you suddenly start having visions? It seems they didn't do anything strong enough to produce such an effect?" I wonder what she would have said then.

Anyway, more installments coming today!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:25 am
Posts: 15
thoughtful wrote:
Eek! I would definitely suggest that no one respond to the previous post, which puts our courteous and literate members Lancelotti, jfk and FLEngineer totally in the shade. Spelling worthy of Frank's, but not here....

To all those who have been so nice about my translations, I can tell you that I am totally addicted to this! I could just listen to the
tapes of course, but I feel I would retain just a vague impression without the complete detail, and also I would forget exactly what was said over time. This is the most complete piece of information that has come our way and I find it just fascinating, and also to see Mignini, a real professional, at work. I don't always agree with his approach (hairsplitting), but that's my amateurish opinion and I feel the iron hand in the velvet glove. Was it Brian who suggested that he actually interrupted Amanda on purpose to provoke the whole "no interruptions" episode in order to prevent Ghirga from intervening to help Amanda? Machiavellian!

I'm also keen to compare this testimony with our timeslines and guesses at what might be said on the stand.

I believe that there are plenty of elements of truth in what Amanda says (and Rudy also). The difficulty is to pick them out. I have to say I completely believe her description of what happened during that first interrogation. I never thought for one moment that the police treated her with calm politeness. If they did, they would never get any information from any criminal. It doesn't sound to me like the police went beyond the bounds of what they usually do. I believe her description, but it underlines the suspiciousness of her suddenly breaking down like that. I'm pretty sure that none of this screaming, shouting and telling me to remember would cause me to suddenly have visions... Of course, I have never been in that situation so I can't be sure, and there are more fragile people than me, but I continue to find that breakdown very telling. I don't think Mignini used the best tactic when he argued that "suggestion" necessarily meant using Patrick's name, or when he said that shouting "Remember! remember!" (about a specific fact, namely "remember that you went out with someone that night") constitutes merely a strong appeal to memory but not a suggestion. I would have preferred to hear him say: "But even if they screamed and shouted and even whacked you on the head twice but not enough to hurt as you said, why did you suddenly start having visions? It seems they didn't do anything strong enough to produce such an effect?" I wonder what she would have said then.

Anyway, more installments coming today!


Hi Thoi8ghtful,

Your translations are fantastic! I know you have received many Thanks for your work, but I need to add mine too: gb-) and THANK YOU :)

I wonder if you might be able to translate the Italian questions that Amanda is responding to in English in the 20 min Corriere della sera video? Eyes for Lies has the video on her site, but she says she is unable to form an opinion without knowing what exactly Amanda is responding to. I would just love to hear her ideas on the testimony, as I'm sure would many others.

Can I be presumptuous and thank you in advance??? :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Dear Wistar,
Thanks for thanking. I will go back and do Audio #1 from Friday. I'd be honored to help Eyes for Lies and most interested in her
comments! I want to finish the 8 segments from Saturday first, though. I'm trying to get through 2 a day...it is really long actually.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm
Posts: 139
[quote="thoughtful"]Hi everyone. I'm posting audio segments 1 and 2 (out of 8) from the Saturday cross-examination. I admit it, I skipped 8-12 from
Friday because I found Ghirga was being a bit too nice, I wanted to hear Mignini. I'm going to complete the Saturday audios
first.

Won't you get this board a bad name saying things like that ?

Could we summarize 8-12 as Ghirga doing his job?. He seemed to lead Knox through a numerous issues where 'myths' and impressions had grown up over the passed months and allowed Knox to give simple and straightforward answers in most cases. He did this over the 2 days, sometimes even raising issues that you'd expect him to avoid .... presumably, to get Knox to answer him rather than a more hostile PM.

For most of us, a variant of the senarios laid out in the posts above seems to be almost certainly the truth about what happened between 21:15 Nov 1 and 12:00 Nov 2nd ? However, I think this week we could update the timelines with the latest info and re-evaluate what we already knew, in the light of Knox's responses?.

The big news seems to be Knox's midday call to her mother on 2nd Nov, and the realisation that knox detailed her accusation against Patrick in the interogration after the one where she was allegedly hit.

There was one objection during the hearings which really brought home how good the Italian system is. A lawyer objected to something on the grounds that 'it was not in the our spirit of investigating the truth' (As opposed to the UK /US 'punch and Judy' approach). It kind of reminds us that the trial is not a one sided witch hunt conducted by people with unshakeable preconcieved ideas, but a process aimed at getting the truth. Mignini himself has a reputation for trying to get to the truth, but not asking that the guilty are 'brurnt at the stake'
.
Finally, I must wish you well on the translation, after months of waiting, the testimony itself is gripping, especially because we know so much already, however it is very hard work when really you're just dying to hear the next question or response ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 65
thoughtful wrote:
...but I continue to find that breakdown very telling...
I see at least several people dismissing the idea that people would confabulate under intense police questioning. But that this can happen is well enough established. Being grilled by the police is generally a fairly harrowing experience be you guilty or innocent.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
KNOX TELLS OF ROMPS
Yesterday Knox, 21, nicknamed Foxy Knoxy, admitted she had only met Sollecito six days before the murder.

She told the court: “I slept with ­Sollecito the first time I met him.”

The pair also had a love of drugs, with Knox adding: “Sometimes we smoked marijuana together.”

She said she had brought two male friends to the house – one called Juba who took her home from work and another called Spiros who wanted to listen to her play the guitar.

Knox also revealed she had a “one-night stand” with a man named only as Daniele.

Lumumba was detained but later cleared and is now seeking damages from Knox.

She told the Perugia court that police had threatened her with 30 years in prison if she ­continued to “lie” about how Meredith had been killed. She told how she was hit twice on the head by a policewoman.

Knox added: “They wanted a name from me.

“They said if I couldn’t give them a name it was because I was a stupid liar. They didn’t say to me he (Patrick) had done it but they kept saying they knew I had met him.”


http://tinyurl.com/mt4cwf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Kevin wrote:
Quote:
Won't you get this board a bad name saying things like that ?

Could we summarize 8-12 as Ghirga doing his job?. He seemed to lead Knox through a numerous issues where 'myths' and impressions had grown up over the passed months and allowed Knox to give simple and straightforward answers in most cases. He did this over the 2 days, sometimes even raising issues that you'd expect him to avoid .... presumably, to get Knox to answer him rather than a more hostile PM.


Absolutely, Kevin! That was not a criticism of Ghirga, saying that he was leading her gently. I think that purely as a lawyer, he is doing an amazing job with her, although he intervenes too often to make a good impression sometimes. I wanted to get to cross-examination to hear Amanda's responses in a less guided situation, I was just in a hurry to see what she would say when her responses were a bit less rehearsed, that's all. I don't want to give the board a bad name so I take all responsibility for being eager to listen to the cross-examination entirely upon my own subjective shoulders!

Wistar, I'm tempted by Eyes for Lies, so I'll try to get Audio #1 done as soon as I can. It should take only half as long as the others since I won't transcribe the English.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Kevin, by the way...you wouldn't like to take a stab at translating/transcribing 8-12, would you? It would get the material out there
sooner! Just an idea...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
From Corriere Umbria. Sorry no time to translate and the article will disappear, Catnip it is possible for you to translate? Thanks.

“Quel giorno intorno a me c’erano tante persone. Che si spostavano continuamente. Lo scappellotto mi arrivò da dietro e non mi accorsi chi me lo aveva dato. Dissi tra me: “Mamma mia”. Il secondo me lo rifilò una poliziotta di cui non conosco il nome. La posso descrivere: aveva capelli lunghi, di colore castano”. Torna sulle presunte violenze Amanda Knox incalzata dal pm Giuliano Mignini. La tensione è alta. Chiede il pm: “Cosa ti hanno detto di dire i poliziotti?”. I toni si alzano. La difesa di Amanda insorge. E’ dovuto intervenire lo stesso presidente, Giancarlo Massei, per interrompere le parti e per ricordare: “Amanda Knox non è una testimone. Offre la sua risposta e a quella ci atteniamo. Dobbiamo garantire la regolarità, la serenità, la ritualità dell’interrogatorio. Poi ognuno tirerà le sue valutazioni”. Amanda, ieri, ha risposto per altre cinque ore. “Perché ha fatto il nome di Lumumba?”, chiede il pm. «Loro volevano un nome e dicevano che io sapevo ma non volevo parlare. Non mi hanno detto che era stato lui (Patrick Lumumba, ndr), ma dicevano che sapevano che io lo avevo incontrato». La studentessa ieri indossava un maglietta e i jeans. Sulla coda di cavallo un mollettone, color rosa. «Dopo avere fatto il nome di Patrick - ha rivelato - ho cominciato a piangere. Ho immaginato la scena con immagini che non concordavano con quanto successo ma forse potevano spiegare». “E perché, le ha chiesto Maresca (famiglia Kercher) ha fatto la “ruota” in questura?” «Ognuno affronta una tragedia a modo suo. Io sono abituata a cercare la normalità in situazioni di difficoltà. È un modo per sentirmi sicura. Mi sentivo molto impaurita. I miei comportamenti lo so, possono sembrare spensierati... ma io sono così». Giulia Bongiorno (difesa Sollecito) ha chiesto all’imputata di Seattle di replicare a un testimone che ha sostenuto di avere notato i suoi denti larghi. «Dimmi tu...» - ha risposto Amanda, con un sorriso largo per mettere in mostra i denti davanti. Il pm Mignini le ha chiesto se fosse la sua la lampada nera con pulsante rosso, trovata nella cameretta di Mez, vicino al cadavere. “Sì, era la mia suppongo. Sai che non ho guardato?” - ha risposto. Secondo l’accusa Amanda e Raffaele, la mattina del 2, avrebbero cercato di buttar giù la porta non per la preoccupazione di Meredith che non si trovava, ma per recuperare la lampada, portata da loro stessi, la sera precedente, nella stanzetta della vittima. “E gli acquisti hard nel negozio di intimi?” Precisa Amanda: “Non avevo più vestiti, non potevo rientrare a casa mia. Per questo ho acquistato un paio di mutande...” Il pm Comodi l’ha messa in difficoltà in quanto Amanda non si ricordava di una telefonata fatta alla madre alle 12 del 2 novembre (quando ancora il corpo di Mez non era stato scoperto). Perché aveva svegliato nel cuore della notte (le 3 a Seattle) la madre? Amanda: “Non ricordo”. La procura ha depositato un rapporto della Fbi su una multa beccata da Amanda, prima di partire per l’Italia. Una festa da college con un po’ di alcol (birra) e con tanto rumore (una band rock che suonava di buzzo buono). Una vicina, disturbata, aveva chiamato la polizia. Che aveva trovato anche sassi sull’asfalto. Nega Amanda il lancio di sassi e lo fa pure il teste Andrew Sieber. Si discute su “Wanted” (avviso, diffida), notificato Amanda: è di natura penale? Tutto sarebbe finito con una multa di 269 euro, pagata da tutti i partecipanti alla festa anche se il verbale fu elevato proprio ad Amanda, la più coraggiosa a farsi avanti.
Picture: Knox friend from Seattle
Andrew Seliber


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
Quote:
Finn wrote:
" And then they both emerge from Amanda's bedroom, just before one, which is when Paola testified that she was them coming out of Amanda's bedroom. And that time in turn is fixed by the activation of Meredith's phone at the police station - at 1300."

I don't see how it is fixed. What do we know about that activation apart from the time?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm
Posts: 139
Thoughtful,

Great to hear you say that, I would hate for this board to descend to the level some people, with views on both sides seem to have. One of the things you notice about the debates are how the 'Anglosaxons' amoung us approach it, as opposed to the 'Latins' .

I think there is a cultural, even religious explaination for this... the 'latins' believe in confession, followed by penance followed by eventual redemption. .... Catholic approach?. The 'anglosaxons' adopt a position that they believe to be 'Politically Correct' and follow this through to extremes .... the Puritan approach?. Going to extremes leads to burning Salem witches, 'liberating' countries 'for their own good ' etc.

After you've done the translations, it would be great to hear your overall impressions. Hearing , as oppossed to reading the testimony, is a massive advantage when deciding which of our 'cherished notions' about Knox to change. For me, I'm even more sure that Knox was involved, but I think I'm a lot closer to understanding what went on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm
Posts: 139
Thoughtful,

I'd love to help with the translations, but I'm already in trouble for spending too much time following the case. If I can, I'll do some at the end of the week. Last night Kermit said 'don't kill yourself, there are still months to go'. Oh, I was going to ask Michael whether the audios need to be downloaded somewhere from that newspaper site, so we don't lose them?. Maybe already done?

It's a real pity that everything wasn't translated by the interpreter and recorded.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:48 am
Posts: 9
Location: lower lusatia
Excuse my english. Maybe this is a little bit offtopic and strange.
I watched some of the CSI pics for several times and I got this strong but unfounded feeling something is missing. Is it possible that MK's cuts around throat and neck could be happened by falling /beeing throwed into a window? Normally a head bumps trough the glass and stopps there because of dissipated kinetik energy pushing the neck down into the sherds.
(A dynamical analysis of the throat cut -direction, velocity and force used - would be helpful)

So here are my questions:
1) are there any traces of blood inside Filomenas room (the one with the broken window)
[extensive cleaning was thought to be done - But not in MK's room. So maybe this is a hint to lead the attention from the real set away? I would call this method a pink elephant.]
2) do the broken glass sherds compile with the left rest inside the windows frame a complete window? (Someone might have taken them away)
3) The bruises of the back of the head and the ellbows look to me like
3a) the body was moved in a inappropriate manner- tossing on the legs with the back against the floor. So this would happen if someone is to weak to carry the body or is not willing because it is a bloody mess.
3b) the body fell off in some way hitting on head and ellbows.
4) were the ofther stiches applied to the body before or after the exitus as part of the staging?

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Cyyates
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:43 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Cyyates-

I have responded to you within the thread you created in the 'Welcome' forum HERE

I think it best that we keep the discussion there, so that it does not interrupt the main disussion going on here in this thread too much.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:45 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
kevin wrote:
Thoughtful,

I'd love to help with the translations, but I'm already in trouble for spending too much time following the case. If I can, I'll do some at the end of the week. Last night Kermit said 'don't kill yourself, there are still months to go'. Oh, I was going to ask Michael whether the audios need to be downloaded somewhere from that newspaper site, so we don't lose them?. Maybe already done?

It's a real pity that everything wasn't translated by the interpreter and recorded.



Yes, I will get round to doing those and create a thread for them along with Thoughtful's excellent translations.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 138
Location: UK
I really don't understand Amanda Knox. Her boyfriend stopped providing her with an alibi for the night and time of the murder and yet she is writing him letters saying that they have "something special" and offering to be his "shoulder". This is after he has said things like "...I thought Amanda killed Meredith or maybe helped someone kill her… Amanda may have set me up by taking the knife and giving it to the son of a bitch who killed Meredith." I just don't understand. If it was me, and I was innocent, I would be furious with him for lying to the police and making it look like I am guilty of murder! So why all the coy smiles and letters to him?

Is she keeping him sweet in the hope that he'll provide her with an alibi after all?

I know that there has been a lot of talk about her 'strange behaviour' and naivety. But this is the thing that really jars with me - if she was innocent, she would not behave so warmly towards him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm
Posts: 278
Location: Switzerland/Germany
Quote:
if she was innocent, she would not behave so warmly towards him.

Hi BellaDonna,
i don't think she behaved warmly for Raffaele, her goal was to look kind-hearted for the outerworld. She knew already she was watched carefully and used this chance to play an innocent lovebird!

"Oh we both know we dont deserve this..." cu-))

Amanda did a frightening good job in telling the court that everything is simple and easy: she was at Raffaeles, they watched a syrupy movie, smoked the strongest pot in the world, made love and fell asleep (btw.i posted once that she should have said definitely that right from the beginning, because it's simple and kinda believable...).

But if everything is so simple, why all the lies, and why the hell doesn't Raffaele confirm this. eek-) (oh i forgot, that's because of the super duper skunk r-(( )


Last edited by petafly on Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 314
Location: England
They're an odd couple to be sure, but assuming they're both guilty then they are currently very reliant on each other to 'do the right thing' - if one goes down then it's quite likely the other will follow. I'm not sure if Raffaele's last known alibi will be tested in court or not. By all accounts he is not going to take the stand.

_________________
Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
On Wistar's request, I did a quick job on Friday's Audio #1 (the one of the Corriere della Sera video), translating only the Italian
questions since Amanda answers in English (so it's best to read this while watching the video, I suppose). He/she was interested in Eyes for Lies having this since Eyes for Lies states that without it she cannot draw any conclusions. I tried to post it on Eyes for Lies comments section but it didn't go up, I don't know why.
Can anyone else (Wistar?) leave her a comment to let her know that this exists? Actually, I saw on her comments that several other
people had a go, as well.

Audio #1 Questions to Amanda.

[Introduction to the day's proceedings, explanation of the role of the
interpreter etc., and Amanda is invited to introduce herself and told that
she can refuse to answer any question.]

Amanda Knox, born July 9, 1987, Seattle, Washington.

[Amanda's lawyer Ghirga invites the other lawyer to start his questions.]
Avvocato [lawyer], please begin.

Good morning, Miss Amanda, I am Carlo Pacelli, I am the defense lawyer for
Patrick Diya Lumumba. A little remark: I will try to keep my
questions in simpler Italian. May I start?


You know Rudy Hermann Guede?

In what circumstances did you meet him?

So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?

Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub "Le Chic", Rudy?

Listen, this party of the neighbors, it took place in the second half of
October? What period, end of October?

[An interlude in which Amanda's lawyers asks the interpreter to not do
a simultaneous translation in which her voice is heard at the same time as
Amanda's, but to translate short phrases consecutively.]

On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

Which substances were they?

Now, when did you first meet Diya Patrick Lumumba?

Did you work at the pub "Le Chic" run by Mr. Patrick Lumumba?

Since when had you been working at the pub?

What days of the week did you work? Every day or some days?

Which days? Do you remember?

What were your relations with Mr. Patrick?

Did Patrick ever mistreat you? (No.) Insult you? (No.) Ill-treat you? (No.)
Threaten you? (No.)

So, Patrick always treated you well? (Yes.) Always treated you with respect?
(Yes.)

You, in your work, Miss, what did you do?


So, you got along well with Patrick. (Yes.)

Was Patrick an irascible or nervous person? [The interpreter whispers
something, the lawyers get slightly annoyed.]

So basically, you got along very well with Patrick. (Enough, yes.)

So you weren't frightened of Patrick Diya Lumumba? (No.)

Listen, on the evening of November 1 2007 you were supposed to go to work
at the pub "Le Chic"? (Yes.)

Did you go? (No.)

Why didn't you go to the pub?

Do you remember this message precisely?

What time was it when you received this message?

Where were you at that moment?

Did you answer Patrick's message? (Yes.)

When you answered Patrick's message, where were you?

What did you answer?

Did you also write "Buona serata"? (Yes.)

How much later did you answer? At what time more or less?

I appears that you answered 25 minutes later. Why all that time? (I don't
remember right now.)

It seems (from cell pings?) that you were out of the house when you answered. Where were you?

[Objections, lawyers talking at the same time. A voice says "It would be
better to hear the objection out, then the court will decide." Someone says
"Can you ask the question again and then we'll hear the objection."
Pacelli says "Where were you when you answered the message?" A woman's
voice, certainly Giulia Bongiorno, says "You have to ask the same question as
before!" Someone, probably Pacelli, says "You are Sollecito's defense,
at least don't start defending..." Another voice says "Let's also avoid these
arguments between defense lawyers." The voices are overlapping. "Excuse me,
avvocato, pose the question again and we'll see if there is an objection."]

Where were you when you answered Patrick's message? (At Raffaele's apartment.)

[A side remark from one of the defense lawyers, but Pacelli goes on.]

How did you come to decide to delete Patrick's message? (I had a limited
amount of space...)

Why didn't you delete your own when you answered him? (I'm not used to
deleting those...) [the interpreter doesn't translate the whole answer]

Listen, Miss...[an interruption, someone wants her to repeat the answer to the
question and hear the complete translation. They do this.]

But I thought I heard her say that there was limited space in her cell phone.
[The interpreter puts this in English for Amanda. She is asked to speak
up into the microphone.] (I'm not a technical genius...)

And you don't know how to delete those that you send? (I didn't even think...)

Listen, let's get to the evening of November 1. On the evening of November 1,
2007, did you have an appointment with Patrick near the basketball court?

[Interlude again asking the interpreter to always speak into the microphone.]

So, on the evening of November 1, you didn't meet Patrick? (No.) You didn't
meet him at the basketball court? (No.) Then why did you say you met him
at the basketball court during your interrogation of November 6, 2007,
at 1:45 in the morning in front of the judicial police? (It was a complicated
situation...)

You had the keys of the apartment in via della Pergola? [Interruption by
Amanda's lawyer: "Excuse me, avvocato (lawyers address each other as "avvocato",
but "Excuse me, lawyer" sounds too strange), she was saying something."
"Sorry, sorry." "She was saying something. You can take all the time you
need."] (The interrogation process was very long and difficult...)

Listen, when you found yourself...have you finished? (No. I haven't explained
what I needed to say.) [Her lawyer asks if she wants to suspend the
proceedings for a rest. She says no. Continues her explanation.]

But -- did you really meet him at the basketball court? (No.)

Then how could you be convinced that you had met him? (I was confused.)

When you said this, how many police inspectors were present?

Listen, but you were accompanied to the bar, they offered you a cappuccino?
They assisted you through the night? (I was offered tea...)

So they treated you well. (No!)

Listen, you had the keys of the house on via della Pergola 7? (Yes, it's
my house.)

Who else had the keys to the house besides you? (Meredith, Laura and
Filomena.)

Laura and Filomena, where were they on November 1st?

Did you go to via della Pergola on the evening of November 1st, after 9
o'clock? (Okay that was all together, can I hear that separately?)

End of Audio/Video segment #1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
The Seattle Times has published an article this morning on how this weekend's testimony went according to Curt Knox. To his credit, the journalist Jonathan Martin sought other input (mine, in this case) to ensure somewhat more balanced local coverage. The comments reflect the lunatic fringe on both sides that I allude to in the comment of mine that is quoted. One commenter makes the - in my opinion - valid point that the defendant's father is probably not the best source of unbiased, disinterested information. Incidentally, the Seattle Times editorial columnist Joni Balter is married to Timothy Egan, who burst on the scene last week with two blog entries bashing the Italian system of justice and presenting a copy/paste of Doug Preston's tired mantra.

http://tinyurl.com/l9lp8u

One of the comments I made to Jonathan Martin that did not make it to print, in answer to his question - why are you devoting time to this? - is that all of these high-profile individuals who have jumped on the FOA bandwagon (Anne Bremner et al) stand to gain financially or in terms of notoriety (which is a way of enhancing their brand equity) from their involvement. Nobody ever asks them why they are doing this because it is obvious. Conversely, we get asked over and over. In America, it is hard for anyone to understand why someone would do anything for no monetary gain. I told him I had no dog in the race and nothing to gain, like others who post here. I talked a little about the notion of free inquiry and attempts to shut it down through intimidation, and the importance of acting as a check and balance on attempts to manipulate the media through PR spin.

My question at bottom is whether or not justice is compatible with PR spin. I think this is something that people need to be concerned about, no matter where they stand on a particular issue.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Thoughtful translated/wrote:

Quote:
You had the keys of the apartment in via della Pergola? [Interruption by
Amanda's lawyer: "Excuse me, avvocato (lawyers address each other as "avvocato",
but "Excuse me, lawyer" sounds too strange
), she was saying something."
"Sorry, sorry." "She was saying something. You can take all the time you
need."] (The interrogation process was very long and difficult...)


I think in English the term for direct address would be "Counsel" or "Counselor for defendant X".

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Interrogation
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:56 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Some rare sense posted on the Cook's:

ferdi wrote:
Posted by Ferdi at 6/15/09 12:17 a.m.

Everybody still busy hearing the audio files?

It seems that during the interrogation on Nov. 5/6, the police wasn't really aware who the person was who received the "see you later" message. Patrick's message to Amanda was already deleted, and her response didn't include Patrick's name. From the police point of view, it was a message to an unknown person at the time of the interrogation.

That contradicts the idea that the police was already after Lumumba at the beginning of the interrogation and that they suggested Patrick's name to Amanda.

(You will find it in the second audio file from Saturday)



THE COOK'S SMOG

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 138
Location: UK
Maybe you guys have discussed this forthcoming book in depth before, but I haven't seen any discussion of it and it was news to me ...

"Darkness Descending"

"A book which claims to "reveal the truth" about the Meredith Kercher case is to be published by Simon and Schuster ... Darkness Descending: The Murder of Meredith Kercher by Paul Russell and Graham Johnson with Luciano Garofano, tells the story of the case surrounding the murder of the British student. The complex DNA clues are explained in simple vocabulary and interviews have been conducted with those close to the trial."

Hope I've posted the link correctly ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: the activation of Meredith's phone at 1300
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
bolint wrote:
Quote:
Finn wrote:
" And then they both emerge from Amanda's bedroom, just before one, which is when Paola testified that she was them coming out of Amanda's bedroom. And that time in turn is fixed by the activation of Meredith's phone at the police station - at 1300."

I don't see how it is fixed. What do we know about that activation apart from the time?


To be honest, I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Bolint, but I can explain what I mean, at least.

I'm going by Micheli's report, which fixes the time of the activation at 1300, and (as I remember; although I don't have a copy to hand) is therefore satisfied that this shows that Filomena is at the cottage at that point. From what I've understood, this means Battistelli contacted HQ via walkie-talkie (or something similar) after he'd spoken to Filomena and Paola (and Filomena had explained the situation with Meredith's phones) and as part of this radio conversation, Meredith's phone was activated at Police HQ (at 1300).

I've never seen that baldly stated as I've outlined it there, but that's just what I've understood from Micheli's report, and from the various witness testimonies. I'm not particularly trying to prove anything by outlining that, just trying to understand what happened - so by all means correct me if I've got it wrong.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:29 pm
Posts: 66
Location: UK
The letters to RS from AK are interesting. The moors murders Ian Brady and Myra Hindley communicated by letter from their prison cells. Detectives gave copies of the letters to code breakers at GCHO who discovered hidden messages in the letters.

_________________
"Commit a crime, and the Earth is made of glass" Ralph Waldo Emerson.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm
Posts: 178
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
One of the comments I made to Jonathan Martin that did not make it to print, in answer to his question - why are you devoting time to this? - is that all of these high-profile individuals who have jumped on the FOA bandwagon (Anne Bremner et al) stand to gain financially or in terms of notoriety (which is a way of enhancing their brand equity) from their involvement. Nobody ever asks them why they are doing this because it is obvious. Conversely, we get asked over and over. In America, it is hard for anyone to understand why someone would do anything for no monetary gain. I told him I had no dog in the race and nothing to gain, like others who post here. I talked a little about the notion of free inquiry and attempts to shut it down through intimidation, and the importance of acting as a check and balance on attempts to manipulate the media through PR spin.

My question at bottom is whether or not justice is compatible with PR spin. I think this is something that people need to be concerned about, no matter where they stand on a particular issue.


Excellent, SB!

Sometimes when I ask myself why I am "obsessed" with certain cases, like this one, it comes back to what you have expressed so eloquently. th-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
According to the article Skep posted,

Curt Knox is quit his job at
Macy's, and is now looking for work???


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
lane99 wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
...but I continue to find that breakdown very telling...
I see at least several people dismissing the idea that people would confabulate under intense police questioning. But that this can happen is well enough established. Being grilled by the police is generally a fairly harrowing experience be you guilty or innocent.


Hi Lane,

Bear in mind that a number of witnesses have testified that Amanda Knox voluntarily accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith and that Amanda Knox lied from the very beginning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
thoughtful wrote:
Eek! I would definitely suggest that no one respond to the previous post, which puts our courteous and literate members Lancelotti, jfk and FLEngineer totally in the shade.



Okay, that comment is hilarious. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You had mentioned in an earlier post that you were "working on your sense of humor and were hoping that it showed." I'd say: most definitely! :lol:

Thanks again for all your translation work. wor-))

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
The 411 wrote:
According to the article Skep posted,

Curt Knox is quit his job at
Macy's, and is now looking for work???



Sounds like he didn't want to go along with a mandatory transfer.

Are you thinking of alternative career paths for him 411? ;)

I actually think he comes off as a decent guy - much more so than C. Mellas.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
BellaDonna wrote:
I really don't understand Amanda Knox. Her boyfriend stopped providing her with an alibi for the night and time of the murder and yet she is writing him letters saying that they have "something special" and offering to be his "shoulder". This is after he has said things like "...I thought Amanda killed Meredith or maybe helped someone kill her… Amanda may have set me up by taking the knife and giving it to the son of a bitch who killed Meredith." I just don't understand. If it was me, and I was innocent, I would be furious with him for lying to the police and making it look like I am guilty of murder! So why all the coy smiles and letters to him?

Is she keeping him sweet in the hope that he'll provide her with an alibi after all?

I know that there has been a lot of talk about her 'strange behaviour' and naivety. But this is the thing that really jars with me - if she was innocent, she would not behave so warmly towards him.


Exactly right. When someone you love betrays you, you are hurt and deeply affected. When someone you are using betrays you, and you still need to use them, you pretend like the betrayal didn't occur. AK's behavior is classic sociopathic manipulation...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
pentredwr wrote:
The letters to RS from AK are interesting. The moors murders Ian Brady and Myra Hindley communicated by letter from their prison cells. Detectives gave copies of the letters to code breakers at GCHO who discovered hidden messages in the letters.


Interesting. Although given the failure of RS and AK to come up with a detailed and consistent alibi storyline from the start, I doubt they are coordinated enough to be speaking in some sort of code. However, there could certainly be veiled insinuations: "Dear RS. I am going back to DJ and I will hang you out to dry if you try pinning anything on me."

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm
Posts: 278
Location: Switzerland/Germany
The Machine wrote:
Hi Lane,

Bear in mind that a number of witnesses have testified that Amanda Knox voluntarily accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith and that Amanda Knox lied from the very beginning.

My first impression was: WOW, this testimony was good for the (foreign) media and everybody who doesn't know too much about the case, cause she really came across as the unwavered everybodys darling, the "real Amanda". Chapeau!

But for the jury, i mean, she lied so openly, without blinking the eyes. First i wondered, why they continued to ask her about the 5th november over and over again, but now i think, this was some kind of trap. She discredited herself completely with her answers on this topic imho.
No further questions needed...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Curt Knox on The Today Show
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
On The Today Show this morning, Curt Knox was interviewed by Keith Miller. When asked if the Knox/Mellas family has reached out to the Kerchers, he replied:

“We’ve tried to express our deep sorrow for the loss of their daughter during interviews,” he said. “We have not contacted them. Until Amanda is found innocent and they know she had nothing to do with the death of their daughter, I find it hard for them to really accept our deepest condolences for the loss of their child.”

The full video and story is here:

THE TODAY SHOW

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
More on the "Mid-day" phone call:

Quote:
Dopo avere trovato aperta la porta d'ingresso della casa di via della Pergola, Amanda Knox chiamò alle 12.07 e alle 12.08 i telefoni cellulari di Meredith Kercher senza ricevere risposta mentre la telefonata alla madre, nel cuore della notte di Seattle, risulta alle 12.47 e non a ridosso di mezzogiorno del 2 novembre del 2007, come era emerso nel corso dell'interrogatorio della giovane americana. Lo hanno rilevato i difensori di Raffaele Sollecito - gli avvocati Luca Maori e Giulia Bongiorno - che hanno ricostruito gli orari esaminando i tabulati telefonici. A loro avviso la circostanza conferma ulteriormente la ricostruzione fornita dalla Knox che nell'interrogatorio aveva sostenuto di non ricordare la telefonata alla madre. I due ex fidanzati si proclamano estranei al delitto e la giovane americana ha confermato davanti alla Corte di Perugia di avere trascorso con Sollecito a casa di quest'ultimo la notte dell'omicidio. Nessun commento da parte della difesa della Knox che intende comunque approfondire questo aspetto nel corso della deposizione della madre di Amanda, Edda Mellas, in programma venerdì prossimo. In ambienti investigativi si sottolinea che la Knox chiamò la madre prima della scoperta del corpo di Mez e dai successivi accertamenti emerse che la donna si mostrò sorpresa per essere stata chiamata in quel momento. Lo si apprende dall'Ansa.


Fondazione Italiani


Google translation:

Once you have found the open door of the house on Via della Pergola, Amanda Knox called to 12.07 and at 12:08 the mobile phones of Meredith Kercher without reply while the phone call to his mother in the middle of the night in Seattle, appears to 12:47 and not close to midday on November 2 of 2007, as was revealed during questioning of the young American. They noted the defenders of Raffaele urge - lawyers Luca Maori and Giulia Bongiorno - who rebuilt the times looking printouts phone. In their view, the fact confirms further the reconstruction provided by the Knox nell'interrogatorio who had claimed not to remember the phone call to his mother. The two ex-boyfriends call themselves outside the crime and the young American was confirmed in the Court of Perugia to have spent at home with I call it the night of the murder. No comment from the defense of Knox, however, that it intends to explore this aspect during the deposition of the mother of Amanda, Edda Mellas, scheduled next Friday. In areas of investigation, points out that the Knox called the mother before the discovery of the body of Mez and subsequent investigations revealed that the woman showed her surprise at being called at that time. The anxiety is learned.

The court has been shown the log of calls from Amanda's mobile number and as Guilia points out there's no midday call to her mother there.

What has ANSA learned about the questions Edda will be asked on Friday?

Did Amanda make a mid-day call home from another number?? Raffaele's landline???


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 377
Brian S. wrote:
The court has been shown the log of calls from Amanda's mobile number and as Guilia points out there's no midday call to her mother there.

What has ANSA learned about the questions Edda will be asked on Friday?

Did Amanda make a mid-day call home from another number?? Raffaele's landline???



Yes, yes inquiring minds want to know. sh-)))


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:51 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
The 411 wrote:
According to the article Skep posted,

Curt Knox is quit his job at
Macy's, and is now looking for work???



Yes, this is correct. It depends which story you listen to though, as some say 'quit' while others say he was made redundant. But, whichever it is, this has been the case for some time.

Just to add about Curt, despite the fact that I dissagree with many of the things he has said, I do actually quite respect him and hold no small degree of sympathy for him. This is because I detect that he holds some degree of honour, his sympathy for Meredith and her family is genuine and he does cut a forlorn figure. If, the Knox Camp does have anything that could be referred to as a 'star', it's Curt Knox. I think they should stick with him and put away their Paul Ciolinos, Anne Bremners, Doug Prestons and especially, their Chris Mellas's (and his little crowd).

The problem for the campaign, is that it has been disjointed, unable to really decide whether to focus on winning hearts and minds, or to savage the ankles of all those they percieve as the enemy. That's why neither approach has been a success. However, in 'spite' of that, Curt knox has been able to win some degree of sympathy. This is probably because he is actually one of the very few in the pro-Amanda movement that is actually genuine. The Amanda crowd need to understand this...the public are not as stupid as they think, in fact they are very intelligent and they can sniff fakery a mile away. For those they may innitially fool, they should know that those members of the public will wise up eventually and quicker then they think. The whirlwind they'd reap from that would put them in a worse position then they were in when they started off.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
I suppose this is just blatant rubbernecking a traffic accident as it happens, but I can't resist documenting Candace's leaping on ferdi for his post earlier I put up here, where he left the reservation:

Candace Dempsey wrote:
Posted by Candace Dempsey at 6/15/09 9:26 a.m.

Ferdi, it only takes a second to ask, who called you? When Amanda said it was her boss, Patrick Lumumba, and he told me not to come to work, that could have been the end of that. It's not like she said, yes, he is the killer! According to her they kept hammering and hammering her to say that she met him that night, which we know isn't true. So it's not so clear. I want to go back and listen more.

In any case, you probably know as much as the reporters now as the sound quality was bad and sometimes it was hard for us to catch her words, even though she spoke slowly and clearly.



THE COOK'S SMOG

Wait, did I read that right, is that really the grasping explanation for Amanda's testimony in regard to her accusing Patrick...we just probably didn't hear her right because 'the sound quality was bad'????

Let's make this simple. Under questioning, 'eventually', Amanda made it clear that the police never even suggested Patrick's name to her (in total contradiction of her testimony a little earlier. We also now know, that Amanda wasn't even asked about the text message until AFTER Raffaele in another room had told police that what he'd told them before was a load of rubbish and that in fact, Amanda had left his apartment to go to Le Chic. This was told to detectives in Amanda's earshot, so she too was aware of this important turn of events.

So, the police version of the interrogation, as they testified earlier in the trial, is simple. On seeing the text sent to Patrick, they showed it to Amanda and asjked her about it...on seeing it, she broke down shouting "It's him, it's him, he's bad, he did it, he did it!!!'. The interrogation was then stopped (01:45).

I doubt at this point the police even 'still' new 'who' Patrick was. But that was okay, because Amanda would certainly tell them in the next session at 03:30 in the presence of PM Mignini, not to mention describe in detail how he murdered Meredith.

What is becoming clear, is that it is the police version of events that is the accurate one. Amanda's testimony amounts to no more then well rehearsed excuses for what she did and those excuses invlove blaming anyone and everyone else for what she said and did.


The police account of how it went down fully makes sense in light of Amanda's testimony

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
Truth Seeker wrote:
The 411 wrote:
According to the article Skep posted,

Curt Knox is quit his job at
Macy's, and is now looking for work???



Sounds like he didn't want to go along with a mandatory transfer.

Are you thinking of alternative career paths for him 411? ;)

I actually think he comes off as a decent guy - much more so than C. Mellas.



Securing a new position in this economy, with the notoriety of this case, and being over age 40, with a need to take temporary leaves of absences to travel to Italy to attend his daughter's trial...
may not make him the MOST employable person just now.

Still, I really do wish him luck in finding a new job.

That said, we must always bear in mind this one thing. However tough this time may be for the Knox family. . . economic hardship and criminal trials do NOT last forever.

Curt Knox recently remarked in one of these TV interviews that he has "LITERALLY nothing."

OK, this is a pet peeve of mine when people say "LITERALLY" when they should say something like "PRACTICALLY" or "VIRTUALLY" or "SEEMINGLY."

(e.g. when people say things like " I was LITERALLY climbing the walls!!!" Ummm...no, I don't think you were *literally* climbing the walls, unless you're some kind of insect or rodent...!!)

If it were "LITERALLY" true, as Curt said, "I have LITERALLY nothing", Curt would have no clothes, no food, roof over his head, no family, no possessions, no health, no wife, no DAUGHTERS, no funds to travel to Italy, no agriturismo rental in Umbria, no ex-wife to be of support to him and Amanda...

Granted, he may be in debt up to his eyeballs, but NO!!!!!!!!It can not be said that he has LITERALLY nothing. He still has his family, his daughters, his friends, supporters, his health, his freedom...just to name a few things for which he should take notice and feel grateful, in spite of his current difficulties.

The Knox family can, and might very well rebound, one day. They may even potentially become wealthier because, rather than IN SPITE of the notoriety.

Conversely, the Kercher Family will NEVER, EVER have the opportunity to "rebound" from this, because, of course, MEREDITH'S murder is permanent.

Sadly, UNLIKE THE KNOX FAMILY's predicament, the damage from Meredith's murder is IRREVERSIBLE.

The trauma of Meredith's gruesome murder will NEVER diminish over the years, and the repercussions will be felt not only for decades, but it will be felt for ***LIFETIMES*** to come. (e.g., When Stephanie has her children, the awareness and absence of their missing "Aunt Meredith" will always be felt. ) ss-)

NEWS FLASH: Unlike the Knox family current predicament, there is no amount of money or attention, no turn of events that will EVER, EVER make up for the loss of Meredith, and the trauma that her death created.

I know that I'm preaching to the choir here. But it's just something that the FOAK and the U.S. media need to bear in mind when covering "the plight" of Amanda's family.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Patrick's new SIM card
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Somewhere else a poster was asking why the police just didn't call the number where Knox texted her message to so they could see who it was. Maybe they did?

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't it reported that Patrick changed or bought a new SIM card/number for his phone shortly after the murder? If the ILE tried to call the number, they would have received an "out of service" message? sh-)))

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:06 am
Posts: 177
Wistar wrote:

I wonder if you might be able to translate the Italian questions that Amanda is responding to in English in the 20 min Corriere della sera video? Eyes for Lies has the video on her site, but she says she is unable to form an opinion without knowing what exactly Amanda is responding to. I would just love to hear her ideas on the testimony, as I'm sure would many others.

Can I be presumptuous and thank you in advance??? :)


Hi Thoughtful and Wistar,

I've been most curious also to hear Eyes for Lies responses to AK's testimony. She has stated in comments to a previous blog entry, though, that having a translation of the testimony doesn't enable her to analyse it properly. She explained that she needs to know the meaning, word by word, uttered by a subject as it is uttered.

I suppose it is problematic also that words from one language to another don't always "equate" and as there is the additional confound of Italian being a relatively new language for AK and so "the data" may be somewhat corrupted by that.

Since EfL has said that a translation wouldn't help, maybe you would like to verify with her whether any type of translation is useful for her purposes, before re-arranging your schedule to translate that bit?

We need an Italian "Eyes for Lies", as well!

The comments on EfL's blog entries on AK are very interesting.

jw


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm
Posts: 19
I know this is complete thread drift, and please feel free to delete, but I feel some profressional pride and feel like I have to defend my profession. I've been an engineer for 14 years and I have an engineering degree. While it's true we learn how to apply formulas and we like when data fits nicely, it's hardly all there is to our job. I was taught that being an engineer means looking at all the facts and data and not trying to make them fit into the solution you want, but rather letting them guide you to the solution that exists.

There isn't a clear motive for why AK, RS, or RG would want to murder Meredith Kercher. (I'm sorry, I can't abbreviate her name. It feels wrong.) On the other hand, there is an astounding amount of data that does put AK and RS in the scene with RG. Whether it's the testimony of Kokomani, the conflicting alibis, the "imagined" vision of Lumumba while AK was in the house, or the call records that don't match a story, or the abundant amount of DNA evidence, it all suggests only one solution so far.

The formula that seems to be the solution is (AK + RS) + RG = murder. For me, I'm curious as to the why, but it would take some pretty huge revelation at this point to make all of AK & RS's stories suddenly tie together which also match the phone records and explain the DNA everywhere.

Kenny Cather
Youngstown, OH
OH Engineer

(Edited to add my name.)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm
Posts: 139
Midday call

Brian S,

Late last night I double checked what Commodi asked and posted the confirmation that I had heard OK.

She said 'Ma risulta dai tabulati e l'incezzione ambientale che lei ha telefonato alla sua mamma a Mezzogirono' ..... But the telephone records and environmental inteceptions ( I think that means cell info ? still not checked) confirm that you called your mother at midday. She repeated midday a few times and said 'at 12:00' once.

Whether Commodi got it completely wrong I don't know ( couldn't see if she was reading from the 'tabulati' ) I knew this was a bombshell the moment I heard it, no wonder Bongiorno is 'on the case'.
I bet all the lawyers had a busy Sunday?.

What would a juror think of this?

The first thought I had was that maybe this will support a lesser role for Soliceto?, then maybe no. Finally, I thought we need to get all the updated info, including timelines in order, see which parts of Knox's testimony we can believe and throw out the dross. Then take a new look at how things happened, I'm still sure all 3 were involved, in the murder but maybe we can get a better understanding exactly how?

'Environmental intercept' could be computer records kept on the cell activity as opposed to Call Data Records on the individual calls, but I'm an IT guy not a telco


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:46 pm
Posts: 32
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Seattle Times has published an article this morning on how this weekend's testimony went according to Curt Knox. To his credit, the journalist Jonathan Martin sought other input (mine, in this case) to ensure somewhat more balanced local coverage.


Skep, you are PG? I read about that harassment thing Ugly.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
jw wrote:
Wistar wrote:

I wonder if you might be able to translate the Italian questions that Amanda is responding to in English in the 20 min Corriere della sera video? Eyes for Lies has the video on her site, but she says she is unable to form an opinion without knowing what exactly Amanda is responding to. I would just love to hear her ideas on the testimony, as I'm sure would many others.

Can I be presumptuous and thank you in advance??? :)


Hi Thoughtful and Wistar,

I've been most curious also to hear Eyes for Lies responses to AK's testimony. She has stated in comments to a previous blog entry, though, that having a translation of the testimony doesn't enable her to analyse it properly. She explained that she needs to know the meaning, word by word, uttered by a subject as it is uttered.

I suppose it is problematic also that words from one language to another don't always "equate" and as there is the additional confound of Italian being a relatively new language for AK and so "the data" may be somewhat corrupted by that.

Since EfL has said that a translation wouldn't help, maybe you would like to verify with her whether any type of translation is useful for her purposes, before re-arranging your schedule to translate that bit?

We need an Italian "Eyes for Lies", as well!

The comments on EfL's blog entries on AK are very interesting.

jw


Jw - I think Eyes for Lies is only seeking to analyze the portion of Amanda's testimony where she is speaking in English (and EfL merely needs a translation of the questions). Hopefully EfL will be able to give some sort of analysis - I think it would be interesting to read! :)

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Patrick's new SIM card
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:12 pm
Posts: 29
Location: Canada
Tara wrote:
Somewhere else a poster was asking why the police just didn't call the number where Knox texted her message to so they could see who it was. Maybe they did?

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't it reported that Patrick changed or bought a new SIM card/number for his phone shortly after the murder? If the ILE tried to call the number, they would have received an "out of service" message? sh-)))


Very good point Tara! Just goes to show no matter how small or trivial a piece of information may seem, it still may end up quite important.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
Wallabee wrote:
I know this is complete thread drift, and please feel free to delete, but I feel some profressional pride and feel like I have to defend my profession. I've been an engineer for 14 years and I have an engineering degree. While it's true we learn how to apply formulas and we like when data fits nicely, it's hardly all there is to our job. I was taught that being an engineer means looking at all the facts and data and not trying to make them fit into the solution you want, but rather letting them guide you to the solution that exists.



For sure, Wallabee. :) One of the most amazing all-around problem-solvers I've ever met was an engineer. I've not been in touch with him for several years, but I'm quite sure that if he were to look at the facts available in this case he would come to the conclusion that AK and RS were very likely involved in the murder.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:06 am
Posts: 177
Truth Seeker wrote:
Jw - I think Eyes for Lies is only seeking to analyze the portion of Amanda's testimony where she is speaking in English (and EfL merely needs a translation of the questions). Hopefully EfL will be able to give some sort of analysis - I think it would be interesting to read! :)


Thanks, TS - in that case Yay-)

I can't wait to read what EfL has to say! Her blog is fascinating.

JW


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
It seems the Italian Press was much less impressed with Amanda's testimony than much of the gushing admiration parroted by CBS, ABC, NBC, and of course Daddy Curt.


Here are just three of the disbelieving headlines on the testimony that have been appearing in the Italian press.

* All of Amanda’s wrong moves (La Stampa)

* Amanda growls but Patrick bites (Il Giornale)

* Amanda: I am innocent. But many “I don’t remembers” start popping up (ANSA)

As many of us were expecting, Amanda’s testimony has backfired. She came across not as confident but arrogant, not as sweet but testy, not as true but a fake who has memorized a script, an actress who is playing a part but not well enough to fool the public.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Occam's Razor
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
Michael wrote:
I've just had a quick peek over at Frank's, against my better judgement. The same old tired line continues to be trotted out...'Occam's Razor'.

These people clearly don't understand Occam. If all the evidence shows multiple people were present and committed a crime, then Occam would therefore say, multiple people committed the crime, as that is the simplest explanation for the 'evidence'. To go through various intellectual gymnastics in order to bypass, ignore or contort the evidence with a whole range of ludicrous and self serving devices in order to reach an agenda driven conclusion, goes against absolutely everything Occam stands for and would have him turning in his grave.

The simplest explanation must match the evidence, or it is no explanation. The simplest explanation in this case therefore, is that multiple individuals assaulted and murdered Meredith. That is what the evidence shows and that therefore is Occam's Razor in motion.


Yeah. While it's easy to say, "The perpetrator must have been the lone wolf Rudi, who left his fingerprint at the crime scene," this conclusion requires a lot of gymnastics:

-the bra clasp was contaminated or DNA was intentionally planted on it
-the knife was contaminated or DNA was intentionally planted on it
-AK named Patrick during her partial "confession" because of duress
-the footprints compatible with RS at the crime scene were made by someone else with similar feet
-the footprints compatible with AK at the crime scene were made by someone else with similar feet or the result of a shower and "bathmat shuffle"
-the store owner who saw her the next morning is mistaken or lying

etc.
etc.

That's *not* the most simple explanation, folks!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jw: I agree - EfL's blog is verrrrrrry interesting!

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Allsburg wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Seattle Times has published an article this morning on how this weekend's testimony went according to Curt Knox. To his credit, the journalist Jonathan Martin sought other input (mine, in this case) to ensure somewhat more balanced local coverage.


Skep, you are PG? I read about that harassment thing Ugly.


Yes, I am PG, aka MG (for Margaret). People are generally shocked by the harassment thing because it is ugly. Incidentally, I am trying to get ahold of an article that appeared last week in Corriere Della Sera in which the harassment is mentioned. People in Italy seem to be paying attention to this unfortunate development as well.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
stint7 wrote:
It seems the Italian Press was much less impressed with Amanda's testimony than much of the gushing admiration parroted by CBS, ABC, NBC, and of course Daddy Curt.


Here are just three of the disbelieving headlines on the testimony that have been appearing in the Italian press.

* All of Amanda’s wrong moves (La Stampa)

* Amanda growls but Patrick bites (Il Giornale)

* Amanda: I am innocent. But many “I don’t remembers” start popping up (ANSA)

As many of us were expecting, Amanda’s testimony has backfired. She came across not as confident but arrogant, not as sweet but testy, not as true but a fake who has memorized a script, an actress who is playing a part but not well enough to fool the public.



Also, AK is one of those annoying witnesses who never directly answers a crucial question and then whose attorney objects on the grounds the other side is badgering the witness or the witness has already answered the question. This is the great thing about closing arguments...you can remind the jury the witness' answer was diffuse and inadequate. I like to say: "I gave up trying to get the witness to answer the question forthrightly. It became apparent the witness could not bring herself to let down her guard; she could not afford to reveal what she has to hide." I don't know how it works in Italy...is there a summation? I can't imagine there wouldn't be.

Anyway, I have to admit, listening to AK's answers, I wanted to cuff her a few times myself. She blows way too much smoke.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 65
The Machine wrote:
...Bear in mind that a number of witnesses have testified that Amanda Knox voluntarily accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith and that Amanda Knox lied from the very beginning.


Thanks, Machine. Not sure what you mean by "voluntarily", in this case. That there was no verbal or physical aggressiveness or intimidation brought to bear during her interrogation? My guess is that there was.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
lane99 wrote:
Thanks, Machine. Not sure what you mean by "voluntarily", in this case. That there was no verbal or physical aggressiveness or intimidation brought to bear during her interrogation? My guess is that there was.


Do you have any evidence to support your opinion or do you believe Amanda Knox's account of what happened?

Given the fact that Amanda Knox has given multiple alibis and lied repeatedly, I don't believe her account of what happened. Furthermore, I don't believe the witnesses, including three interpreters, who testified that Knox was treated well and was not hit are lying.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
The Machine wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Thanks, Machine. Not sure what you mean by "voluntarily", in this case. That there was no verbal or physical aggressiveness or intimidation brought to bear during her interrogation? My guess is that there was.


Do you have any evidence to support your opinion or do you believe Amanda Knox's account of what happened?

Given the fact that Amanda Knox has given multiple alibis and lied repeatedly, I don't believe her account of what happened. Furthermore, I don't believe the witnesses, including three interpreters, who testified that Knox was treated well and was not hit are lying.


And in my opinion what if she was cuffed? These kinds of physical gestures are very Mediterranean. My now deceased Mediterranean husband was always lightly cuffing his boys. It's a way of saying: "Wake up, pay attention." It is never meant to cause physical pain. It's kind of like when you smack your own head when you say something stupid. Hardly the equivalent of torture or intimidation...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:06 am
Posts: 177
TJMK has a new piece up - Nicki has translated an editorial response from La Nazione to Mr Egan's NYT blog.

Thanks, Nicki!

jw


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
The following reports are worth revisiting:

"Ms Donnino said that when questioned after Ms Kercher's body was found, Ms Knox walked up and down nervously at the police station, "hitting her head with her hands". She had denied responding to an SMS message from Mr Lumumba telling her there was no need to come to work because there were few customers, leaving her free for the evening. But she broke down when police said phone records showed that she had done so, Ms Donnino said.

"She showed extreme emotional involvement – she was crying and visibly shocked, saying 'It was him, it was him. He's bad'," Ms Donnino added.

Ms Donnino said that Ms Knox had been "comforted" by police, given food and drink, and had at no stage been hit or threatened.

The newspaper Corriere dell' Umbria said that Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor, would bring an additional charge of slander against Ms Knox, since all police officers and interpreters who have given evidence at the trial have testified under oath that she was at no stage put under pressure or physically mistreated." (The Times, 15 March, 2009).

"The questioning stopped, and when Knox was asked if she wanted a lawyer, she said no, according to Donnino. Donnino repeatedly confirmed that Knox was never mistreated, and made her statements voluntarily." (ABC News, 13 March, 2009.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Although the Italian Press was definitely not nearly impressed as their American peers, Amanda's highly paid consultant's and/or legal team generally coached and rehearsed her well to try and make a favorable impression on the Italian Court.

In addition to speaking their language, (pointedly when convenient, and when most effective), her exceedingly emphatic, clutch-type hand waving and overall constant gyrating gesticulating would make her seem very much just a good ol honest Italian gal over morning espresso in the Plaza.

Her demure head bowing coy smile when describing her hickey love bite was Oscar Award level acting, as was the demonstration of head hit with the priceless well coached and often rehearsed "Mamma Mia".

Her "once in a while with friends" description of how much drug use answer grants her the same amount of legal wiggle room, and really is just a preferable way of avoiding another "I can't remember".

And next.... an even better coached and rehearsed mind numbing recitation of "public relations" talking points from the totally unbiased, and never deterred by facts, Mama Edda.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am
Posts: 101
Location: Hidden Hills, CA
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Allsburg wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Seattle Times has published an article this morning on how this weekend's testimony went according to Curt Knox. To his credit, the journalist Jonathan Martin sought other input (mine, in this case) to ensure somewhat more balanced local coverage.


Skep, you are PG? I read about that harassment thing Ugly.


Yes, I am PG, aka MG (for Margaret). People are generally shocked by the harassment thing because it is ugly. Incidentally, I am trying to get ahold of an article that appeared last week in Corriere Della Sera in which the harassment is mentioned. People in Italy seem to be paying attention to this unfortunate development as well.


I thought you hit all the right points in the article, especially how FOA are constantly changing their talking points...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:00 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
stint7 wrote:
Although the Italian Press was definitely not nearly impressed as their American peers, Amanda's highly paid consultant's and/or legal team generally coached and rehearsed her well to try and make a favorable impression on the Italian Court.

In addition to speaking their language, (pointedly when convenient, and when most effective), her exceedingly emphatic, clutch-type hand waving and overall constant gyrating gesticulating would make her seem very much just a good ol honest Italian gal over morning espresso in the Plaza.

Her demure head bowing coy smile when describing her hickey love bite was Oscar Award level acting, as was the demonstration of head hit with the priceless well coached and often rehearsed "Mamma Mia".

Her "once in a while with friends" description of how much drug use answer grants her the same amount of legal wiggle room, and really is just a preferable way of avoiding another "I can't remember".

And next.... an even better coached and rehearsed mind numbing recitation of "public relations" talking points from the totally unbiased, and never deterred by facts, Mama Edda.


The Italian press had defined Knox "theatrical"

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Allsburg wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Allsburg wrote:


Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Seattle Times has published an article this morning on how this weekend's testimony went according to Curt Knox. To his credit, the journalist Jonathan Martin sought other input (mine, in this case) to ensure somewhat more balanced local coverage.


Skep, you are PG? I read about that harassment thing Ugly.


Yes, I am PG, aka MG (for Margaret). People are generally shocked by the harassment thing because it is ugly. Incidentally, I am trying to get ahold of an article that appeared last week in Corriere Della Sera in which the harassment is mentioned. People in Italy seem to be paying attention to this unfortunate development as well.


I thought you hit all the right points in the article, especially how FOA are constantly changing their talking points...


To the journalist's credit, he quoted me on that. I gave him several examples to choose from.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 65
mrsdarcy wrote:
...And in my opinion what if she was cuffed? ...It's kind of like when you smack your own head when you say something stupid. Hardly the equivalent of...intimidation...


The police smacking you in the head is not much more than smacking your own head? Come on. I think most people would disagree with you. And the *least* that would be would be is intimidating.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:48 am
Posts: 9
Location: lower lusatia
So this looks like a quite personal perception of Ms Donnino.
But please rember: applying enhanced interrogation techniques (even without force) is capable to break almoust any personality into shattering pieces. So there were a lot of them around of AK constantly asking questions pushing mentally. After a couple of hours a normal brain will simply "give up" entering a state of very low awareness (fed up with very too much repetetive informations). So combine this with effects of constantly flashbacks from the sinking level of THC this will lead to a level were you can no longer decide if you are dreaming or if this is the reality. This state of non-causality is a really s*** thing - because you are totally lost.
So if there are no tapes of the questioning there is simply nobody to trust :)


Last edited by bfd on Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:22 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
bfd wrote:
So this looks like a quite personal perception of Ms Donnio.
But please rember: applying enhanced interrogation techniques (even without force) is capable to break almoust any personality into shattering pieces. So there were a lot of them around of AK constantly asking questions pushing mentally. After a couple of hours a normal brain will simply "give up" entering a state of very low awareness (fed up with very too much repetetive informations). So combine this with effects of constantly flashbacks from the sinking level of THC this will lead to a level were you can no longer decide if you are dreaming or if this is the reality. This state of non-causality is a really s*** thing - because you are totally lost.
So if there are no tapes of the questioning there is simply nobody to trust :)


Since all the other roommates and friends were interrogated by the same police, one should assume that Filomena, Laura, theirr boyfriends, Sophie etc are all wonderwoman/superman like beings, able to maintain total control when subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques"????

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 314
Location: England
lane99 wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
...And in my opinion what if she was cuffed? ...It's kind of like when you smack your own head when you say something stupid. Hardly the equivalent of...intimidation...


The police smacking you in the head is not much more than smacking your own head? Come on. I think most people would disagree with you. And the *least* that would be would be is intimidating.


But as AK said, 'it didn't hurt'. Even if she was tapped lightly on the back of the head (as she claims), I don't see that as being justification for her to firstly accuse an innocent person of being involved (with no prompting from the police as to which name to give!) and secondly to write it down as her 'gift' to the police. She's shown this weekend that she can look after herself. She would have had to have been put under a huge amount of duress for her claims to make any sense, and last weekend (in my opinion) she did not prove that she was pressured in that way at all.

_________________
Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Lane wrote:

Quote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
...And in my opinion what if she was cuffed? ...It's kind of like when you smack your own head when you say something stupid. Hardly the equivalent of...intimidation...


The police smacking you in the head is not much more than smacking your own head? Come on. I think most people would disagree with you. And the *least* that would be would be is intimidating.


I am not sure the police "smacked" her in the head. AK admitted she was not hit but rather startled. Testimony from several different police officers suggests AK was somewhat out of control, hitting herself and so on. I am also not sure that the police strive to be non-intimidating in all circumstances either. A police station is not a tea room, even if tea was apparently offered.

I have a little trouble believe that the assured and at times arrogant person sitting on the stand this weekend would have been rattled by questioning.

I also don't think it is a he said/she said situation. Several different witnesses have given concordant testimony. One person - one of the defendants - has told a divergent story. It is not testimony because she was not under oath. If you look at the witnesses so far, we are being asked to believe that every single one is either lying or just plain wrong/mis-remembering. And we are supposed to believe someone who said "I don't remember" many, many times.

Filomena Romanelli heard what AK had to say and had a fairly strong reaction to it. Filomena doesn't strike me as a witness who is unreliable or who has an ax to grind.

In fact, I am hard-pressed to name a single witness who can be identified as having a clear ulterior motive or who is out to get AK and/or RS.

What it really comes down to is how credible AK is as a "witness" in her own story.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
bfd wrote:
So this looks like a quite personal perception of Ms Donnio.


Police officers and other interpreters testified that Amanda Knox wasn't intimidated or hit.

bfd wrote:
So if there are no tapes of the questioning there is simply nobody to trust :)


Recordings of Amanda Knox being questioned by Mignini have already been released and Barbie Nadeau has had access to other recordings:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/201615


Last edited by The Machine on Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Nicki wrote:

Quote:
stint7 wrote:
Although the Italian Press was definitely not nearly impressed as their American peers, Amanda's highly paid consultant's and/or legal team generally coached and rehearsed her well to try and make a favorable impression on the Italian Court.

In addition to speaking their language, (pointedly when convenient, and when most effective), her exceedingly emphatic, clutch-type hand waving and overall constant gyrating gesticulating would make her seem very much just a good ol honest Italian gal over morning espresso in the Plaza.

Her demure head bowing coy smile when describing her hickey love bite was Oscar Award level acting, as was the demonstration of head hit with the priceless well coached and often rehearsed "Mamma Mia".

Her "once in a while with friends" description of how much drug use answer grants her the same amount of legal wiggle room, and really is just a preferable way of avoiding another "I can't remember".

And next.... an even better coached and rehearsed mind numbing recitation of "public relations" talking points from the totally unbiased, and never deterred by facts, Mama Edda.


The Italian press had defined Knox "theatrical"


It was recently revealed that AK wants to be an actress. Maybe she thought this was a screen test. I have been told by sources that she seemed to enjoy her two days in the spotlight.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:48 am
Posts: 9
Location: lower lusatia
Quote:
As heard in audiotapes obtained by NEWSWEEK

So that means unproven leaking. Without a provinience this facts are compromitted with all including problems. So there should be a official release by the police.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
bfd wrote:
Quote:
As heard in audiotapes obtained by NEWSWEEK

So that means unproven leaking. Without a ponvinience this facts are compromitted with all including problems. So there should be a official release.


An official release of what exactly? Every single recorded interview? Is this standard practice?

I don't know whether the initial conversation about the text message was actually recorded, but I do know that Amanda Knox voluntarily repeated her accusation that Diya Lumumba murdered Meredith in her handwritten note the following morning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:48 am
Posts: 9
Location: lower lusatia
nicki wrote:
Since all the other roommates and friends were interrogated by the same police, one should assume that Filomena, Laura, theirr boyfriends, Sophie etc are all wonderwoman/superman like beings, able to maintain total control when subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques"????

It has been not been said, that the other girls/guys experienced the same treatment in the same extend (of time).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
In response to comments by lane99 and bfd:

What you say would be fair "talking points" if they had been made 18 months ago.

But that hasn't been the case.

For all this time the Italian police have been accused by the Knox/Mellas families, the American media and Amanda's defenders of extracting a "confession"?? after a 9/14 hour interrogation without an interpreter, during which time she was refused food and water, generally mistreated and repeatedly hit about the head before she succumbed and named Patrick at their suggestion. Amanda may have said in court that she can't identify the officer who "cuffed" her twice(and I remind you, we still only have Amanda's word on that), but over a year ago Chris Mellas had identified her in pictures and said she had repeatedly punched Amanda in the head during those claimed 14 hours(the alleged torture session increased from 9 to 14 hours over the first few months).

Slowly over time as information came out of Italy, people who took an interest in the case came to realise that what they were claiming was far from the truth. That Amanda and Raffaele after enjoying a pizza meal, voluntarily went to the police station at around 10:30 and that Amanda was only interviewed starting around 11:30/12:00 because Raffaele withdrew his alibi from her and said she "went out" that night.

Within two hours, by 1:45 Amanda blamed Patrick. She had been interrogated by 3 officers and was aided by an interpretor who offered her camomile tea during the interview. Perhaps Amanda rejected her offer because it wasn't coffee???


Last edited by Brian S. on Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
Brian S. wrote:
Perhaps Amanda rejected her offer because it wasn't coffee???


:D :D :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:48 am
Posts: 9
Location: lower lusatia
The Machine wrote:
An official release of what exactly? Every single recorded interview? Is this standard practice?

I don't know whether the initial conversation about the text message was actually recorded, but I do know that Amanda Knox voluntarily repeated her accusation that Diya Lumumba murdered Meredith in her handwritten note the following morning.

As such interview is part of the protected inner core of personal space, release means it should be introduced into the case but not into public.

Brian S. wrote:

Hope I can trust this :)

Normally there is a fixed code of conduct for interrogations. Every step should be transparent (time, location, attendies)....


Last edited by bfd on Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
BFD wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
As heard in audiotapes obtained by NEWSWEEK


So that means unproven leaking. Without a provinience this facts are compromitted with all including problems. So there should be a official release by the police.


For the purposes of our discussion, however, this is not really a problem.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm
Posts: 139
Stint7,

The report I've read on Knox's testimony which most closely matches what I heard on the audios was 'What did court learn from Knox testimony?' on the BBC news site. It seems as unbiased as you would expect from the BBC.

I think the point to remember is that until last Friday, everybody thought it would be an incredible risk to put Knox on the stand? We all thought she would be a disaster?. In fact, if you consider where she started from, with all the facts we knew that were against her, she did astonishing well. The jurors (the only ones who count at the end of the day) will have dismissed a lot of the less hard 'evidence' everyone was familiar with as 'dross'.

How did the defense pull it off?. I also thought 'coaching' at first, but how many hours was she on the stand? Could a Hollywood actress be coached on what to say for a 10 hours (or whatever it was) performance?. I'm sure they gave her general advise and specific things to watch for, but that is their job.

I was asking before the trial, given the evidence against her, what strategy could the defense use?. The only one I knew of was a famous case 'The Green Bicycle Murder' where the lawyer just got his client to 'admit everything except the murder'. The evidence seemed impossible to ignore, but the defendant was found not guilty.

I think that kind of approach was taken here, she was very candid about almost everything, so much so that the prosecution seemed to retreat at times. She never got intimidated and never 'lost it' when the tough questions came. these jurors are all professional people, not the type to be out to lynch her (you don't need waste money on a trial for that)

As the BBC piece says, 2 good days won't get her aquitted, but compared with where she stood with the jurors on thusday I'm sure that she has changed some perceptions?.

The downside for her is the midday call to Edda, and the fact that she made most of her accusation against Patrick came in the interogation after the one where she claims to have been 'clocked'.

The hard physical evidence will almost certainly see both AK, and RS convicted, but Knox , at least, is going down fighting.

Incidentally, there is a documentary on Google video on how the SAS (UK special forces) train to resist interogation. If by some miricle Knox gets found not guilty, I think they'll offer her a job as an instructor. Coincidentally, they only have hold out a few days, after that the info they have is usually useless to the enemy, and not worth getting your fingernails pulled out or head cut off for.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has published the police ticket for the incident which resulted in Knox getting a criminal record:

In the city of Seattle

I was on uniformed patrol in the marked unit as 3U5. At approximately 0028 hours, I responded to the report of a loud party in the listed location. The complainant relayed to dispatch that participants from the party were throwing rocks at his house and at passing cars. The complainant requested officer not contact him. Upon arrival, I noted loud amplified music coming from the listed address. The music could be heard from a distance greater than 75 ft from the source. I also noted several rocks in the street. I did not locate any damage at that time. I contacted a party participant and had them retrieve a resident.

S1/Knox contacted me (in front of the house). She stated that she was one of the current residents. She stated that she was the one who was hosting the party (as she was moving out). She stated that she was not aware of any rock throwers at the gathering.

I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.

See Cad event 264012 for further.

No further action taken at this time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:48 am
Posts: 9
Location: lower lusatia
[quote=Stint7][/quote]
You mean: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8099871.stm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Obviously Filomena and Laura were not subjected to the same interrogation techniques. Neither was Amanda at first, it started only when Raffaele suddenly withdrew his alibi for her.

I fully believe Amanda's story, but that is not because I believe she is a truth-teller. I believe it because that is how the police do interrogate potential suspects. Amanda's description -- everyone standing around her, all shouting questions at the same time,
shoving the phone in her face etc. sounds to me like the way the police work in these situations. I do not consider it particularly
dreadful or scandalous, I think that if they did not do it they would get no results. In my opinion, Amanda's declarations simply do
not contradict the sworn testimony of the police officers (except maybe on the detail of the cuff, but that is so minor. Even there I'd
tend to believe the policewoman did it, and so what big deal.) As for the tea, Amanda herself says she was given it after she named Patrick. And they said they gave her some. Where is the contradiction?

I don't think her breaking down under such an interrogation, the intense part of which lasted well under two hours, proves guilt, but it certainly does seem to be a sign of some kind of mental weakness or possible traumatism, or something wrong. As a thought experiment, I tried to believe Amanda's testimony all the way, and noted the points where my belief stops. This is totally subjective, of course, but it's an interesting experiment for anyone to try.

Anyway, I'm about to post audio segments #3 and #4. Bye everyone!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:25 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
The Machine wrote:
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has published the police ticket for the incident which resulted in Knox getting a criminal record:

In the city of Seattle

I was on uniformed patrol in the marked unit as 3U5. At approximately 0028 hours, I responded to the report of a loud party in the listed location. The complainant relayed to dispatch that participants from the party were throwing rocks at his house and at passing cars. The complainant requested officer not contact him. Upon arrival, I noted loud amplified music coming from the listed address. The music could be heard from a distance greater than 75 ft from the source. I also noted several rocks in the street. I did not locate any damage at that time. I contacted a party participant and had them retrieve a resident.

S1/Knox contacted me (in front of the house). She stated that she was one of the current residents. She stated that she was the one who was hosting the party (as she was moving out). She stated that she was not aware of any rock throwers at the gathering.

I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.

See Cad event 264012 for further.

No further action taken at this time.



Thanks TM! So much for the Daily Mail fabricating the story, or PM Mignini getting the story from the Daily Mail (he got it direct from the ticket itself) and so much for everyone mentioning the rock throwing being liars!!!

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Audio #3

[Arguments still continuing: "Stop, now we really have to move forward."]

She accused Patrick and no one else because they were continually talking
about Patrick. Suggesting, to use Amanda's words.

I am asking: the police, the police could not suggest. And the interpreter,
was she shouting the name of Patrick? Sorry, but what was the police
saying? Knox: "The police were saying, 'We know that you were in the
house.' " Knowing that she was in the house was what she said before! And
now: "When I said Patrick's name, someone was showing me the message I had sent
him." This is the dispute. There is a precise moment: "The police were
showing me the message, and..."

Excuse me, excuse me pubblico ministero [talking at the same time] excuse
me, excuse me, the objection consists in the following: [to Amanda],
when there are contrasts or a lack of coincidence with previous statements,
be careful to explain them.

Okay.

Do you confirm the declarations that the pubblico ministero read out?

I explained it better now.

You explained it better now. All right pubblico ministero. Go ahead.

So, let's move forward.

Okay.

Now, what happened next? You, confronted with the message, gave the name of
Patrick. What did you say?

Well, first I started to cry. And all the policemen, together, started saying
to me, you have to tell us why, what happened? They wanted all these
details that I couldn't tell them, because in the end, what happened was
this: when I said the name of "Patrick", I suddenly started imagining a kind
of scene, but always using this idea: images that didn't agree, that maybe
could give some kind of explanation of the situation. I saw Patrick's face,
then Piazza Grimana, then my house, then something green that they told me
might be the sofa. Then, following this, they wanted details, they wanted
to know everything I had done. But I didn't know how to say. So they started
talking to me, saying, "Okay, so you went out of the house, okay, fine, so
you met Patrick, where did you meet Patrick?" I don't know, maybe in Piazza
Grimana, maybe near it. Because I had this image of Piazza Grimana. "Okay,
fine, so you went with him to your house. Okay, fine. How did you open the
door?" Well, with my key. "So you opened the house". Okay, yes. "And what
did you do then?" I don't know. "But was she already there?" I don't know.
"Did she arrive or was she already there?" Okay. "Who was there with you?"
I don't know. "Was it just Patrick, or was Raffaele there too?" I don't know.
It was the same when the pubblico ministero came, because he asked me:
"Excuse me, I don't understand. Did you hear the sound of a scream?" No.
"But how could you not have heard the scream?". I don't know, maybe my
ears were covered. I kept on and on saying I don't know, maybe, imagining...


Okay, okay.

[A quiet voice, away from the microphone: I'd like to ask for a contestation
[objection]. Mignini tries to continue: All right, so... The other voice
comes back stronger. "The objection --" "Please, please!" "I said, I am
asking for an objection." "Can we listen to what the pubblico ministero has
to say?" "I appeal to the court that this is making the examination
impossible." "I am trying to understand. You can't obstruct things this way..."
"I object!" "To what? You haven't even heard what I'm trying to say yet.
You can't make preventive objections!" "I'm not objecting to..."
"Please, please avvocato (this is how lawyers are addressed, but it sounds
really strange to write "Please lawyer"], no no no no, the pubblico ministero is
speaking." A lot more crossing "Please, please!" Then someone says "I
understand that when these interruption happens, the tone gets a bit louder,
but that is not helpful. [Interruption] Please, please-- but we are getting
the impression that the objections are preventive. So while the pubblico
ministero is speaking, which he has every right to do in this phase, and the
defense already had their chance to do it, and they weren't interrupted
yesterday, so we ask for equal treatment today, at the present moment of the
examination of the accused. And the tone should always remain cordial without
giving the impression of a..." "We are just saying that..." "Please, avvocato.
There's no reason. We are trying to reconcile all parties. Go ahead."]

The question is this: You say, you just told me a little while ago, that...
the police -- I'm trying to -- well, I have to give a little introduction so
she understands my question. You said "they found this message and they asked
me whom it was to, if it was true or not true." And you answered. Then
the police obviously goes forward with their questions. "So, tell us".
And you...you just told me, I can't read it, obviously I don't have the
transcription right here, but, I might be making a mistake, I don't know, but
you were saying that you remembered Piazza Grimana. Did you really say that?

[Amanda says "si" while again Ghirga starts]: Please, please, there, now
what the accused is saying is: "On the basis of these elements, I tried to
reconstruct a scene that could be verified." In these terms, not because she...
She mentally elaborated, with her imagination: this is what I understood, how
the scene could be realized, containing those elements that had come up.

Yes [certo].

But she wasn't speaking of an effective memory of circumstances that had
effectively occurred in her perception. That is the meaning of the response of
the accused.

Certo.

But you said that you remembered Piazza Grimana.

I had an image of Piazza Grimana.

[Ghirga] An image of Piazza Grimana, that's right.

Listen, in the interrogation, page 95, the same interrogation, but the same
expression turns up in other places, I can give references if necessary,
I asked this question: Why did you throw out an accusation of this type?
In the confrontations with Mr. Lumumba (I was continuing and you answered

right away): "I was trying, I had the possibility of explaining the message
in my phone. He had told me not to come to work." Perfectly normal things.
So, faced with a perfectly normal circumstance, "My boss texted me to
tell me not to come to work and I answered him," you could have just stated
that. End of response. Instead, faced with the message, and the questions
of the police, you threw out this accusation. So I am asking you, why start
accusing him when you could calmly explain the exchange of messages? Why
did you think those things could be true?

I was confused.

[Ghirga] She has repeated that many times.

But what does that mean? Either it's true, or it isn't true. Right now,
for instance, you're here at the audience, you couldn't be somewhere else.
You couldn't say "I am at the station." You are right here, right now.

Certo.

The question is clear.

Can I answer? [At the same time Ghirga quelling some noise] Excuse me, excuse
me! Please, go ahead.

My confusion was because firstly, I couldn't understand why the police was
treating me this way, and then because when I explained that I had spent the
whole time with Raffaele, they said "No, you're a liar". It was always this
thing that either I didn't remember or I was lying. The fact that I kept
on and on repeating my story and they kept saying "No, you're going to prison
right now if you don't tell the truth," and I said "But I've told the truth,"
"No, you're a liar, now you're going to prison for 30 years because either
you're a stupid liar or you forgot. And if it's because you forgot, then
you'd better remember for real, right now." This is why I was confused.
Because I didn't understand. I didn't understand why. I didn't understand
anything any more. I was so scared and impressed by all this that at some
point I thought What the heck, maybe they're right, maybe I forgot. [Ghirga
starts mumbling but then gives up.]

So, and then, you accused Lumumba of murder. This is the conclusion.

[A bit of talking. "Please, go on with the questions."]

So, I wanted to know something else. At what time did the water leak in
Sollecito's house?

After dinner, I don't know what time it was.

Towards 9, 9:30?

21, that's 9? No, it was much later than that.

A bit later? How much?

We had dinner around...10:30, so that must have happened a bit later than that.
Maybe around 11 [slow voice as though thinking it out. Not very convincing.]

And then, the next morning, at what time did you go to Sollecito's house to

clean up the water? Was the water still on the floor?

There still was a bit, there still was a bit of water, but not too much to
clean up.

From 23:00 onwards, at what time did you go to his house to clean up the
water?

Twenty-three...okay. The next morning, I didn't look at the clock, but I went
to my house around 10:30. And then I went back, it must have been before
midday.

What day are we talking about?

We're still talking about Nov 2.

November 2.

In the morning. I think it was maybe around 11:30? Just by reasoning, but
I didn't look at the clock.

Listen, on the morning of Nov 2, you went to your house, and you saw the traces
of blood in the little bathroom.

Yes.

The traces of blood on the bathmat.

Yes.

When was the last time you had been in that bathroom?

Me?

Yes.

I must have...well, before the 2nd, I must have gone in there at least once
when I came home on Nov 1st.

Excuse me, but what time did you leave the house in via della Pergola on Nov 1?

Around...4 o'clock, maybe? I don't look at the clock. But I know it must have
been 4 or 5 o'clock when we left the house on Nov 1.

And you were in the little bathroom before leaving the house?

Yes.

Now, the last time you were in the little bathroom, before leaving the house,
it might have been more or less around 4 o'clock?

Around then, yes.

All right. You knew that Filomena wasn't home?

I knew that she had gone to a party that afternoon.


A party. Fine. And Mezzetti?

Laura, you know, I didn't know where she was. I knew she wasn't in the house
when I was there, but I didn't really know where she was.

When you saw the bathroom for the last time, were there traces of blood in it?

No.

All right. Now, let's get to the moment when Meredith's door was broken down--

Okay --

We can go backwards later. Did you see Meredith's room?

No.

Did you get a glimpse?

No.

Where were you?

I was near the entrance, in the living room.

Sollecito was with you?

Yes.

So he didn't see either.

No.

From what Frost, Meredith's friend, said, and others, we heard that you,
or Sollecito, claimed to have seen the body in the closet, covered with a
sheet, and nothing could be seen but a foot. Now if you hadn't seen the room,
and Raffaele hadn't seen it either, how could you make this observation?
How could you -- I'm asking another question -- and how could this closet
contain Meredith's body? You know the closet, right? I have a black and
white photo of it here. Here. This closet.

All right. Firstly, I think Frost made a little mistake, because I never said
that I saw Meredith's body in the closet. I said that I had heard people around
me saying that there was a body in the closet, that was covered, with a
foot sticking out. I too was confused by this, but that's what I heard.
But when people kept on asking me what happened, what they had found, I
answered what I had heard.

Or what Raffaele told you.

Raffaele, or the people he was asking for me.

Why do you say, or rather, it's the lawyer who says, he was speaking for you
right then: "She confirmed that Raffaele heard from other people that
maybe this was the version. Page 78 of my... Do you remember that?
And also page 79.


Do I remember that interrogation?

Yes.

I remember the fact that Raffaele was asking the people around us what they
had seen.

Look, on page 79 you say: "I understand, I understand. He said precisely:
'Apparently there's a girl, there's the body of a girl in the closet, but
the only thing you can see is her foot.' " You say that Raffaele said this.

Yes.

You confirm it.

I confirm that we heard from the people around us that there was this fact
about the closet, a body in the closet.

But it's Raffaele who said it to you, not the people around.

But--

You said that the people around you told it to him.

He was the person who was helping me to understand what they were saying. He
spoke to me, explaining everything that was happening, because in the end,
I was in shock and also I didn't understand.

So, who were these people who said this to Raffaele?

We were all asking each other, because there was Filomena's friend, who had
maybe obviously heard it from the police, but it's not like a followed
exactly where the information was coming from. Everyone was talking.
Everyone was giving explanations and versions and information, and I kept
turning to Raffaele because at least he understood the language. I didn't
even understand...

Raffaele didn't tell you who told him?

No, but he was explaining to me above all what I asked him: what happened,
what was in the room, those things.

I'm asking you, but if you don't know, just tell me: did he say to you
"Filomena told me" or "such-and-such told me", Altieri, the tall girl,
the others that were there that saw into the room. There was no girl in
the closet. Did he tell you who told him that? That there was a girl
inside the closet?

No, he didn't tell me who said that. It was the people around.

[Ghirga] She already answered. All right pubblico ministero, go ahead.

I wanted to spend a moment on one last question, maybe the last but I don't
know, about the morning of the 6th.

Okay.


There's another thing I didn't understand.

You said pressure was put on you, and there were suggestions, you explained
today exactly what those consisted in, to say the name of Patrick and to
accuse Patrick. Then you wrote a memorial in which you confirm everything.
And you weren't under pressure right then. Why didn't you just say: "I
falsely accused someone." Someone who was in prison, who was put in prison,
maybe for a long time. Can you explain this to me?

Certo.

[Ghirga, very, very calmly..."Can I make an objection? Very, very tranquilly?"
Another voice: Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you [for the calm
doubtless]. It seems to me that the pubblico ministero, in presenting his
questions, always makes references which go as far as actually suggesting
the answers, and also -- " "Well it is a cross-examination." "Please, please
let each person speak. Please avvocato." "In the question he just asked,
he mentions the memorandum and says it confirms. Now, this might be a
question, but it should not be an assertion on the part of the pubblico
ministero. He can ask another question after. If we look in the minutes,
we find a series of unilateral declarations which all go to show what
interests the pubblico ministero. To my mind, this technique goes against
our way of examining the accused."]

[Ghirga] All right, taking into account these remarks, the pubblico ministero's
question could be rephrased like this: during the 5th and the 6th, you said
there were pressures, and the name of Patrick Lumumba emerged as also being
involved in these events. But you wrote the memorandum spontaneously, you
yourself asked for paper to be able to write it. And with the freedom to do
this, you referred to it as a gift, these elements which had already emerged,
you reasserted them, and this involvement of Patrick Lumumba. How did you
-- this question was already asked yesterday -- you weren't in the room
any more, there wasn't any pressure, didn't the truth somehow get
stabilized?

Yes, yes. In fact, what happened is that I had literally been led to believe
that somehow, I had forgotten something real, and so with this idea that I
must have forgotten, I was practically convinced myself that I really had
forgotten. And these images, that I was actually forcing myself to imagine,
were really lost memories. So, I wasn't sure if those images were reality
or not, but explaining this to the police, they didn't want to listen to the
fact that I wasn't sure. They treated me as though I had now remembered
everything and everything was fine and I could now make a declaration in
the tribunal to accuse someone. I didn't feel sure about that --

But in the memorial, do you remember what you wrote about Patrick? Because
maybe this point wasn't precise...

I want to object to this point. Two points in the memorial. If I'm not
mistaken, you weren't a witness right then. You had been arrested. You know
the difference between a witness and a suspect. You know the difference.

[Ghirga] She knows the difference.

Sorry, avvocato, but I'm asking questions! Can I ask questions! He's
continually --


Sorry, sorry, go ahead.

This is impossible!

Go ahead, go ahead.

I am asking, now I'm distracted, now, the difference between witness and
suspect, you say that you made these declarations so you could leave, but
instead you were arrested. And you wrote the memorial after you had been
arrested, and you say two sentences: I'll read them. This is about the
events that could have taken place in my house with Patrick. [This might not
be the exact quote in English] Do you know what the word "confirm" means
in Italian? "In the flashbacks I'm having, I see Patrick as the murderer."
There wasn't any policeman with you when you wrote that. No one. You wrote
that in complete liberty. And it's even more decisive than what you
said some hours earlier. Can you explain this?

I couldn't even explain to myself why I had these images in my head, because
I didn't know if they were memories or not. And I want to say that if I
made these declarations, that they asked me to sign and everything, I did
it, but I wanted in the memorial to explain my doubts, that I wasn't sure
about it, because no one ever wanted to listen when I said this.

At that time did you ever have lapses of memory? Moments where you couldn't
remember things that you had done?

[Laughing] I've had that problem all my life, I can't remember where I put
my keys.

So you previously mixed up things, didn't know whether you had dreamed things
or they were real?

No, not that part about the imagination! I would forget for example what I ate
yesterday for dinner, yes, that happened to me, but not to actually imagine
things.

To imagine something that hadn't really happened, that never happened to you.

No. I never had that problem, but then, I had never been interrogated like
that before.

Okay, so when you had this flashback, you saw Patrick as the murderer. What
was this flashback?

The flashback consisted in this image of Patrick's actual face, not that I
imagined an actual act, I imagined his face. Then I had this image of
Piazza Grimana, then an image of Patrick's face, then I always had this
idea that they wanted to say: these images explain the fact that you met him,
and you brought him home, and maybe you heard something and covered your
ears, and it was always like this, not that I actually imagined having seen
Meredith's death. It was these images that came by themselves, to explain...

All right, now let's talk about your memorial from the 7th, still written
in total autonomy, without anyone around you. You wrote: "I didn't lie when
I said that I thought the murderer might have been Patrick. At that moment
I was very stressed and I thought that maybe it was really Patrick." Then
you add "But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I
remember that I didn't go home."

Yes, because I was convinced that I somehow could have forgotten...

So what you had said might have actually been true?

Yes.

End Audio #3
Start Audio #4

Yes, it could have been true, but at that moment. But then, when I was able to
rethink the facts, it became clearer and clearer that it didn't make sense,
that it was absolutely ridiculous that I could have thought that or imagined
it.

But didn't you feel the need to intervene to get an innocent person out
of prison? You didn't feel the need?

But the police had already called me a liar, and I didn't feel they were
listening to me. Also because in the Questura--[he interrupts "The Questura
in the prison?" or something like this, can't really hear it]
--in the Questura I had already told them: Look, I'm
not sure about this, and they didn't want to hear that. They didn't want
to listen, because they said to me "No, you'll remember it later. You just
need a little time to really remember these facts." I told them no, I
don't think it's like that, but they didn't want to listen.

But you, once you said that you remembered, [snaps fingers?] you could
have just made a declaration or sent me another memorial saying "No, I didn't
say the truth. Patrick is innocent."

[Ghirga] Excuse me, we already had explanations about this.

All right, I have another question.

[Ghirga]Please, go ahead.

I have another question. You had a 250 dollar fine from the court in Seattle.

What? Oh, yes.

Can you explain that? What was the motive?

In Seattle, I lived with four friends of mine in a house. When we finished the
lease, we wanted to have a party to celebrate the end of our time living
together and also just the end of the year. So, we had a party. At the
party there was a band, one of my friends played in it. So there was a band,
and they made such a tremendous racket that the neighbors called the police to
come and stop the noise. Since I was the person in the best state to talk to
the police right then, I went out of the house and took responsibility for the
noise. So I got the fine, and everybody helped me pay it.

Do you know about the article that appeared on "Mail Online", by [name?],
on Dec 3 2007, which refers to the event -- I ask for the acquisition
of this article -- in which the episode is described with many details.
There is also a translation into Italian. I would like to ask for the
translation of this article. [Intervention: "This will be made available
to all parties." A fairly long pause.]

It talks about incredibly loud music, drugs, alcohol and throwing rocks into
the street. [Intervention by Ghirga: "Would it be possible to actually ask
questions?"]

Yes. Do you remember this episode? [Ghirga: "Excuse me, pubblico ministero.
You described this episode in the terms we just heard. But can the pubblico
ministero assert that there was use of alcohol and drugs on that occasion, or
are these just rumors?" Amanda starts: "So in fact--" but Ghirga
continues: "and then there's something else" -- voices overlap, someone says
"The Court doesn't know anything about this." Ghirga says: "Go ahead,
go ahead."]

There is a report by police officer Bender [Ghirga: "Oh, all right. Okay,
okay. Let's just make specific and precise questions.
Excuse me -- the episode was just sketched. One can ask about the drugs
and the alcohol."]

So, there was alcohol at this party; we had beer. I didn't know anything
about drugs because I was inside the house. I don't know about drugs at the
party, but there was beer for sure.

Anything else?

And noise.

And rocks getting thrown at windows and in the street, so much that it
was blocking the traffic--

[Ghirga: "Excuse me, excuse me! That was the article, it
could say things that aren't true -- Excuse me! It has been requested that
this document be produced and placed at the disposal of all parties. But
if you have specific questions--"]

Do you remember -- is it true what this article says?

[Laughing] No. No.

[Ghirga: "Do you have specific questions?"]

What is the significance of this sum of 269 dollars?

[Ghirga: "It's a fine...a payment."]

[Amanda's voice suddenly very loud] It's like when you park your car in a
forbidden place and you have to pay a fine, it's the same thing. [In her
confusion maybe she uses the familiar "tu".]

All right, all right [short intervention by Ghirga, voices overlapping.]

Now, let's get to the episode of the 23rd.

Twenty-third? [Voices: "You have the Italian translation."]


The 23rd of November...no, the 23rd...the audition of the assistant Gioia
Broci and someone else from the 23rd of last April, in which she made
reference to the survey or visit to the via della Pergola on November 4.

Okay.

She says that while you were looking at the silverware [Amanda asks what
this word means; he replies "knives"], you started to tremble and cry
and covered your ears with your hands. Suddenly. Can you explain why?

As I said...

[Ghirga: "Tell him if the episode is true, if it happened, how and why."]

All right. The fact that I cried in the house when I saw the knives is true.
I cried, because when I entered the house, I had to look around to see if
anything was missing that could have been used to kill someone, it made
a strong impression on me. It was as if all that time, I hadn't been able
to even accept the fact that she was really killed, Meredith, and then
having to actually be inside the house, looking at knives, being actually
there, it was as though the people around me...I was there, and they were
asking me to look if there were any knives missing. I said "Okay", but the
situation was so heavy, I don't know, it really hit me.

So when you looked at the knives, you felt disturbed.

Yes, I was disturbed, it made such an impression on me.

Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith's room, a black
lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith's room, at the foot of
the bed, was it yours?

I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes.

So the lamp was yours.

I suppose it was.

Was it missing from your room?

You know, I didn't look.

Did Meredith have a lamp like that in her room?

I don't know.

Hm. All right. Listen, when did you know that the boys from the downstairs
apartment were all leaving for the long weekend?

I had kind of heard that they wanted to celebrate Halloween somehow or other,
but I didn't understand or didn't know where they were going and how long
they were going to be away. It's always because when everyone was talking
together, us and the boys from downstairs, I didn't really understand very
well, I didn't get a clear sense of what was happening.

But you know that November 2nd, unless I'm mistaken, was a Friday. No?


Yes.

So then there was Saturday and Sunday; you knew that those days were a holiday
here, didn't you? The 1st and the 2nd.

Yes, I wanted to go to Gubbio.

Right.

But what you just said about Halloween, you must have heard that on October
31, no? In the morning?

I don't know exactly when I heard it.

But you knew they were going away, the boys.

I knew they were going to do something to celebrate Halloween together, at
least that's what I understood.

Hm. Now, how is it that you went downstairs to see if they were home, on
the morning of the 2nd?

I didn't know whether they were home, or not. We wanted to go down and ask
them if they had heard anything.

Hm.

So I went there, I knocked...

And nobody had told you that they had all gone to their respective homes,
far from Perugia?

If they said that, then I didn't understand it, because really I thought that
they were just talking about Halloween.

Now, on the evening of November 1, do you remember if Raffaele received
any phone calls while you were at his house?

At Halloween?

The evening of the 1st.

I don't remember.

Okay. Listen, another question. Do you remember, on the morning of the 2nd,
if Raffaele tried to break down the door of the room?

Yes.

How then, when later Romanelli arrived, you said that it was normal for Meredith
to lock her door. Yet you tried to break it down. Can you explain this?

Certo. When the police came they asked, at least they asked Filomena,
if that door was ever locked, and she said "No no no no, it's never, never
locked." I said "No, that's not true that it's really never locked," because
sometimes it actually was locked. But for me, it was strange that it was
locked and she wasn't answering, so for me it was strange, but I wanted
to explain that it wasn't impossible, that she did lock her door now and then.

But usually, you remember her door being open.

Yes it was usually open or at least...yes.

But on that morning, I understand that you were said to have stated that
Meredith always locked her door. And that it was normal.

I never said it was always locked. It's just that they didn't understand.
I just wanted to explain that it was not always open.

I see, she didn't explain.

[Another voice: dalla Vedova? "The pubblico ministero is asking you: okay,
you say it was not always open, not always closed, but it was a circumstance
which didn't particularly alarm you, so much so that you mentioned this to
Romanelli--" Amanda: "Yes, because Filomena was answering like that--" "Okay,
okay, but it sounds like the locked door didn't alarm you, whereas in fact
Raffaele Sollecito had already tried to break down the door. So?"]

Well, I was worried because she wasn't answering. The fact that the door was
locked wouldn't have alarmed me if, say, she had answered, but the fact that
she didn't answer when we called her made us think: maybe she's in there and
she isn't well or something.

[The same voice: not Mignini] For goodness' sake, still on this circumstance.
A door is locked, locked, why should I think there is someone inside who isn't
answering me? I could just calmly think that nobody is there--

Also that. But we weren't sure. Sorry--

--and if she's not home, why should I be worried? Enough to ruin the door by
breaking it down? Why should I think that there is someone there who is not
answering me? The simplest answer is that she left, locked the door and left.
She's not answering, why call her? The door is locked, she's not there.

I know. But the fact that there were all these strange things in the house--

No, for heaven's sake. After this, the other party [Mignini] will continue the
examination. I want to say: you find the main door open, you can think
that she left and forgot to close it, but she locked her own door. Why
should you be so worried that you try to break down her door? I think this
is what the pubblico ministero is asking. There. If you could explain
why you were so worried, your motive for trying to break down the door.

Yes. I was worried that somehow she was inside and had hurt herself, because
there were so many strange things in the house, and so I didn't know what
to think. But at the same time, she could have been inside or not, but
I wanted to be sure, because if she had hurt herself in some way, or if
someone was in there, or if she went out because there was something in there,
I didn't know. And the fact that the door was locked together with the broken
window had me very worried, I didn't know what to think, but I was worried.
So I wanted to knock the door down to see if there was something in there.
I didn't know what. But at the same time it worried me. And when I said
to Filomena "It's not true that it's never locked," I only wanted to explain
the truth of the situation. Because someone was saying "No, no, it's
never locked," and that wasn't true. I wanted to explain that.

[Mignini again, I think] I see. On the 3rd of November, did you go to the
store Discovery (?), on the day after the discovery of the body of Meredith?

When I bought underwear?

Yes.

What happened there? Tell us a bit.

So, I didn't have any more clothes, so I went with Raffaele to this store to
get underwear, because I didn't even know when I would be able to go back
into my own house and get my things back. So we went there and looked at
some clothes, and in the end I bought a pair of underwear.

The document in our possession -- where is it now? [voices crossing.]

Maybe it would be better to take a break? Shall we suspend proceedings?

Amanda: That would be beautiful.

Fine. We'll suspend the audience -- now it's 11:17 -- we'll suspend until
11:28, to start again at 11:30.

End of Audio #4

.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
bfd wrote:
Hope I can trust this :)

Normally there is a fixed code of conduct for interrogations. Every step should be transparent (time, location, attendies)....


The 3 officers and interpreter gave their evidence back in March. Because it wasn't covered so fully in the press as Amanda's evidence, we only have what can be gleaned from press reports, but on the basis that they were on the stand for hours I guess all the details such as times etc. were given to the court or aquired by the defences during cross examination. Amanda in her evidence has said that other officers were coming and going, but you have to remeber the situation. Using the same technique the would in the US, Raffaele was being interviewd in another room down the way. There was information being relayed back and forth about what the two were saying in the different rooms

The fact that the tapes/transcipts aren't before the court is totally down to Amanda's defense. They wanted them disallowed and that is what happened because at the time Amanda made her statement she didn't have a lawyer.

The prosecution fought to keep them in so I'm not so sure they'll be embarrassed by what they contain.

Meanwhile, why not note what Amanda's defense lawyer, Ghirga informed the press after Judge Heavey's letter of apology came before the pre-trial cout in Perugia last October.

'Amanda wasn't hit. There were pressures from the police, sure, but we never said she was hit...
'The american lawyers don't represent anyone, they never did.
'The MSNBC video made us laugh. Nobody is interested in that.
'The Americans attack... 'We'll free Amanda with the Marines...'.


You can watch him say it live in the video at this link:

Perugia Shock


Last edited by Brian S. on Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 377
kevin wrote:
Stint7,

The report I've read on Knox's testimony which most closely matches what I heard on the audios was 'What did court learn from Knox testimony?' on the BBC news site. It seems as unbiased as you would expect from the BBC.

I think the point to remember is that until last Friday, everybody thought it would be an incredible risk to put Knox on the stand? We all thought she would be a disaster?



Kevin, for the record I may have been in the minority but Amanda's performance did not surprise me a bit. I think I posted something to the effect that the prosecutors were the ones that needed to be prepared for Amanda. IMO we are witnessing the talents of a full blown sociopath/psychopath. They can even fool psychiatrists with their wit and charm. They have no conscience. IMO she needed no training but perhaps a few pointers from her lawyers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
lane99 wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
...but I continue to find that breakdown very telling...
I see at least several people dismissing the idea that people would confabulate under intense police questioning. But that this can happen is well enough established. Being grilled by the police is generally a fairly harrowing experience be you guilty or innocent.


I agree. Its happened to people I know. A room full of people doing their job, good cop/ bad cop, yelling threatening, pressuring....of course to get information. rightfully so...
it was a murder interrogation. the pressure to get to some answers was intense, no doubt.

Its why there will have to be cameras in every room someday, especially Murder Interrogations. They know this.
It would have prevented all this mystery. but thats not here nor there now.

What the interrogators didn't know at the time, was this would be such a media-frenzied case to be put under a microscope.

I have no problem giving a suspect the benefit of the doubt that they were totally confused and going along with the bizarre charade under extreme fear and pressure. Its believable.

I don't have legal expertise but even if the suspect pointed the finger, via pressure or her lies.....the final decision to arrest Patrick lays at the feet of the Authority whoever that was.

Who ordered the arrest? Mignini? I don't know.
Someone had the authority to decide to arrest Patrick and they are responsible for Patricks arrest.
Whoever made the order is responsible.

I find it hard to believe AK fooled the entire department of professionals. And even if she was a convincing liar, she did not order Patrick be arrested because she doesn't have that kind of power or authority.
She didn't ask to be interrogated. She gave her testimony, what was done with it is someone elses decision.
Why didn't they just throw out her testimony?

If the suspect can be found guilty of slander, then the same should go for Judge Matteini who "slandered" Patrick also in her reconstruction. yes?

from the Judges words-
while for Diya the desire to have carnal relations with a girl he liked and who was refusing him, and in the face of a denial from the victim, they did not have the presence of mind to desist, but tried to forced the will of the girl using a knife that Sollecito always carried with him.

thats pretty scary and damaging, that a Judge would create such a story too. "jumping to conclusions"?
She then made the decision.
but Judge Claudia Matteini ruled there were "serious indications of guilt" that warranted keeping the three in jail for up to a year while the investigation continues.

oop-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 314
Location: England
Thoughtful, once again thank you very much for these transcriptions. Personally when I read her cross examination by Mignini she doesn't come across as very reliable at all. Of course some will say I'm biased just by posting on this forum, but there were a number of points there where she left things either unexplained ('I can't remember') or contradicted by other witnesses. Interesting that she states that she saw none of that 'yucky' blood when showering approximately 6 hours before Meredith's murder.

_________________
Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Thanks Mr Curt Knox...You really "done us all proud".here in America.

In replying to a rare non powder puff question Saturday from US Press about how it must have been painful to sit in court and hear of your daughter's sex life and drug use, Curt's 'Seattle PR talking point' answer made me want to vomit.

Verbatim quote:
Yes, but it’s one in which I think every young person, as they grow up, experimented in certain things, and it’s one in which she’s becoming an adult,” Curt Knox said. “Everybody has their own opinion, but I believe she came off as really who she is, which is just a regular college kid.”

Paraphrased:
"Well now everyone can see that every young person as they grow up acts as Amanda has, and she is just a regular college kid".

My Reaction:
JEEEEZ. Sex with 7 different guys in a couple weeks, most if not all after very brief meetings for the first time, including a lucky stranger train passenger, "serviced" enroute......
"normal" ???? PUH-LEEZE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm
Posts: 231
Location: US
Hi Just Looking,

I think think that they got her with the yucky blood too. She said she used the bathroom the afternoon of Nov. 1 and didn't see any blood. Then where did her blood come from to mix with Meredith's? She already said she wasn't bleeding the morning of the 2nd.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
JFK wrote:
...
If the suspect can be found guilty of slander, then the same should go for Judge Matteini who "slandered" Patrick also in her reconstruction. yes?

from the Judges words-
while for Diya the desire to have carnal relations with a girl he liked and who was refusing him, and in the face of a denial from the victim, they did not have the presence of mind to desist, but tried to forced the will of the girl using a knife that Sollecito always carried with him.

thats pretty scary and damaging, that a Judge would create such a story too. "jumping to conclusions"?
She then made the decision.
but Judge Claudia Matteini ruled there were "serious indications of guilt" that warranted keeping the three in jail for up to a year while the investigation continues.



JFK, may I remind you that at the time Matteini said those words she thought there was some truth in the statement Amanda had made blaming
Patrick.

Later the state cleared Patrick's name, said that further investigations had proven him innocent of the claims made by Amanda and paid him compensation for the two weeks he spent in prison.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm
Posts: 139
BFD, yes sorry, I should have posted the link ... 0230 here in Switzerland, falling asleep


The piece says there were only a few 'I don't remembers' and that is how I recall it in the audios. It would be more suspicious if there were none at all ,in 10 plus hours of questioning?. We could do a word count when the script is ready.

I'm sure she was told to tell the truth about everything except maybe a few important points, that way you don't have to remember masses of info and can confidently answer questions for hours?

In the few 'heated exchanges' Knox came out on top as many times as the prosecution. Who would have thought that on Thursday?

Finally, we must remember that it doesn't matter what journalists or blog posters think, just those 8 jurors?.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Am I correct in thinking that it was Amanda who earlier in the interrogation introduced "the scream"?

I must look back.

It was the same when the pubblico ministero came, because he asked me:
"Excuse me, I don't understand. Did you hear the sound of a scream?" No.
"But how could you not have heard the scream?". I don't know, maybe my
ears were covered. I kept on and on saying I don't know, maybe, imagining...


Cos, the police certainly didn't know about it on the 5th Novemeber.

Nara Capezzali didn't come forward with her evidence until a week or two later.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
indie wrote:
kevin wrote:
IMO we are witnessing the talents of a full blown sociopath/psychopath.


Can the prosecution demand a test be done to confirm this?

thank goodness they have several Judges and jurors to balance the decision!!!

i'm still totally flip flopping on this case. qt-)

Its hard to find someone guilty when you can't even comprehend a human/humans can do this to such an innocent girl?

I want a motive, but a lot of police and legal professionals often say there's not always a simple clear motive.
Of course this is true. They see this stuff all the time. A common person doesn't have expertise, as the poster stated, the suspect could be a sociopath. Who would know?

How does the jurors work on the verdict? Being different from the US, having to agree....in this case they each have an equal vote, so do they get to vote in private, anonymously? Or do they sit around a table at the end, and discuss openly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
FROM TRUTHFUL'S TRANSLATED TESTIMONY TRANSCRIPT (TTTT)

Amanda said:
"Well, I was worried because she[Meredith] wasn't answering. The fact that the door was
locked wouldn't have alarmed me if, say, she had answered, but the fact that
she didn't answer when we called her made us think: maybe she's in there and
she isn't well or something.

[The same voice: not Mignini] For goodness' sake, still on this circumstance.
A door is locked, locked, why should I think there is someone inside who isn't
answering me? I could just calmly think that nobody is there--

Also that. But we weren't sure. Sorry--

--and if she's not home, why should I be worried? Enough to ruin the door by
breaking it down? Why should I think that there is someone there who is not
answering me? The simplest answer is that she left, locked the door and left."
_________________________________________________________
YES!
Blood, strange things in the house, and Meredith's locked door. Why would you suddenly leap to the conclusion that
Meredith was BEHIND that locked door, when there was no response--unless you had psychic abilities or you knew she was there, unable to respond.

It was Amanda herself who noticed that Meredith had the habit of
locking her door, BUT ONLY when she was going to be away for a while. Away for a while...hmmmmmm..

Not flushing the toilet would be so atypical for Meredith, one might rightly think Meredith were unwell.
Then seeing blood here and there might cause a flatmate to further worry about Meredith, but
would the flatmate then assume that in her ill/injured state, wounded Meredith would isolate herself behind a LOCKED door, instead of calling for assistance????

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Why didn't Amanda FIRST explore the possibility that Meredith was taken to a hospital?
Why not call Meredith's friends before immediately thinking about the most TRAGIC, INCOMPREHENSIBLE, UNLIKELY scenario--MURDER.

Isn't that what most (innocent) people would think/do?
Even if Amanda thought Meredith were injured behind that door.. an injured person would NEVER lock the door behind themselves to delay any attempts at getting help.

It's like that old medical adage, "When you hear hoof beats, think HORSES, and not ZEBRAS."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Brian S. wrote:
JFK wrote:
...
If the suspect can be found guilty of slander, then the same should go for Judge Matteini who "slandered" Patrick also in her reconstruction. yes?

from the Judges words-
while for Diya the desire to have carnal relations with a girl he liked and who was refusing him, and in the face of a denial from the victim, they did not have the presence of mind to desist, but tried to forced the will of the girl using a knife that Sollecito always carried with him.

thats pretty scary and damaging, that a Judge would create such a story too. "jumping to conclusions"?
She then made the decision.
but Judge Claudia Matteini ruled there were "serious indications of guilt" that warranted keeping the three in jail for up to a year while the investigation continues.



JFK, may I remind you that at the time Matteini said those words she thought there was some truth in the statement Amanda had made blaming
Patrick.

Later the state cleared Patrick's name, said that further investigations had proven him innocent of the claims made by Amanda and paid him compensation for the two weeks he spent in prison.



but still it was the decision of who was in charge. thats why they make the big bucks, IMO.

many people say many things. many people present evidence and testimony.
thats the pressure of power and responsibility of power, to take ownership of these difficult decisions they make.

I make decisions off many factors at work, an accumulation of evidence, I, the authority, then make the decision for which the action is taken. I am responsible for the final decision.

Example, If I am wrong in my decision, I can't go back selectively and blame Evidence B- the picture/photographer, or go blame Evidence C- the street cop gave for his "tip". It was my decision.

So does the accused pay Patrick for two weeks too?

anyhoot...its not that big of a deal when one is facing 30yrs.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
I also think that people should realise that "a performance" doesn't have the same impact in the Italian system as it does in commom law.

When the jurors give their verdict a report is produced explaining their exact reasons for coming to that decision.

See Micheli's sentencing report on Rudy Guede for an example.

This report won't be short, it will extend to several hundred pages. Frank has likened it to "a book".

The way they pick into the detail, if it was Amanda who introduced that scream they won't miss it's significance.

It will be written in black and white should there be a guilty verdict:


eg.

In her interview on the 5th November, Amanda Knox stated there was "a scream".

At that time nobody was aware that Meredith made a loud scream at the time that she was killed.

That knowledge wasn't available until Nara Capezalli gave her evidence on (date).

The fact that Amanda Knox knew of this scream on the 5th November is a factor indicating her presence at the cottage when Meredith was killed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
jfk1191 wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
JFK wrote:
...
If the suspect can be found guilty of slander, then the same should go for Judge Matteini who "slandered" Patrick also in her reconstruction. yes?

from the Judges words-
while for Diya the desire to have carnal relations with a girl he liked and who was refusing him, and in the face of a denial from the victim, they did not have the presence of mind to desist, but tried to forced the will of the girl using a knife that Sollecito always carried with him.

thats pretty scary and damaging, that a Judge would create such a story too. "jumping to conclusions"?
She then made the decision.
but Judge Claudia Matteini ruled there were "serious indications of guilt" that warranted keeping the three in jail for up to a year while the investigation continues.



JFK, may I remind you that at the time Matteini said those words she thought there was some truth in the statement Amanda had made blaming
Patrick.

Later the state cleared Patrick's name, said that further investigations had proven him innocent of the claims made by Amanda and paid him compensation for the two weeks he spent in prison.



but still it was the decision of who was in charge. thats why they make the big bucks, IMO.

many people say many things. many people present evidence and testimony.
thats the pressure of power and responsibility of power, to take ownership of these difficult decisions they make.

I make decisions off many factors at work, an accumulation of evidence, I, the authority, then make the decision for which the action is taken. I am responsible for the final decision.

Example, If I am wrong in my decision, I can't go back selectively and blame Evidence B- the picture/photographer, or go blame Evidence C- the street cop gave for his "tip". It was my decision.

So does the accused pay Patrick for two weeks too?

anyhoot...its not that big of a deal when one is facing 30yrs.



JFK,

Yet again you make the mistake of criticising the Italian system.

They don't have bail. They consider it an unfair system because only the rich can afford to pay.

Instead, when they make a decision to lock people up or release them while the investigation continues the Judge has to give a reason for their decision.

If the information given by the judge to justify their refusal of freedom is later proven to be wrong, the locked up person is awarded compensation for the time they spent inside.

It's not just Patrick, its the system Italy uses instead of bail.

Judging by Patrick's compensation of E8000 for 2 weeks, which I gather is only just over the normal sum for that kind of time period (that's his complaint in his appeal{to the awarding authority} against the award. He says it should be more because of all the notoriety attached to him from this case.), E4000 a week sounds pretty good pay.


Last edited by Brian S. on Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Brian S. wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
JFK wrote:
...
If the suspect can be found guilty of slander, then the same should go for Judge Matteini who "slandered" Patrick also in her reconstruction. yes?

from the Judges words-
while for Diya the desire to have carnal relations with a girl he liked and who was refusing him, and in the face of a denial from the victim, they did not have the presence of mind to desist, but tried to forced the will of the girl using a knife that Sollecito always carried with him.

thats pretty scary and damaging, that a Judge would create such a story too. "jumping to conclusions"?
She then made the decision.
but Judge Claudia Matteini ruled there were "serious indications of guilt" that warranted keeping the three in jail for up to a year while the investigation continues.



JFK, may I remind you that at the time Matteini said those words she thought there was some truth in the statement Amanda had made blaming
Patrick.

Later the state cleared Patrick's name, said that further investigations had proven him innocent of the claims made by Amanda and paid him compensation for the two weeks he spent in prison.



but still it was the decision of who was in charge. thats why they make the big bucks, IMO.

many people say many things. many people present evidence and testimony.
thats the pressure of power and responsibility of power, to take ownership of these difficult decisions they make.

I make decisions off many factors at work, an accumulation of evidence, I, the authority, then make the decision for which the action is taken. I am responsible for the final decision.

Example, If I am wrong in my decision, I can't go back selectively and blame Evidence B- the picture/photographer, or go blame Evidence C- the street cop gave for his "tip". It was my decision.

So does the accused pay Patrick for two weeks too?

anyhoot...its not that big of a deal when one is facing 30yrs.



JFK,

Yet again you make the mistake of criticising the Italian system.

They don't have bail. They consider it an unfair system because only the rich can afford to pay.

Instead, when they make a decision to lock people up or release them while the investigation continues the Judge has to give a reason for their decision.

If the information given by the judge to justify their refusal of freedom is later proven to be wrong, the locked up person is awarded compensation for the time they spent inside.

It's not just Patrick, its the system Italy uses instead of bail.

Judging by Patrick's compensation of E8000 for 2 weeks, which I gather is only just over the normal sum for that kind of time period (that's his complaint in his appeal against the award. He says it should be more because of all the notoriety attached to him from this case.), E4000 a week sounds pretty good pay.


thats interesting, but do the people being interrogated get sued often?

and then does the person who gave testimony have to pay out more than the awarded compensation?

yes in the US we have the Bail Bonds men (often shady, but often helpful in a crisis, especially for the poor)....believe me, no one I know here in the US can afford bail either! except the rich.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
JFK - thats interesting, but do the people being interrogated get sued often?

and then does the person who gave testimony have to pay out more than the awarded compensation?

.............






The state compensation is the end of their interest or involvement.

Only if the person wrongly imprisoned on the word of someone else, of their own volition takes out a civil case against the other person can they get any more.

That's what Patrick has done with Amanda.

He could spend a lot on lawyer fees and end up with nothing if Amanda is found innocent on his civil slander charge.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Seattle Police Report
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
The Machine wrote:
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has published the police ticket for the incident which resulted in Knox getting a criminal record:

In the city of Seattle

I was on uniformed patrol in the marked unit as 3U5. At approximately 0028 hours, I responded to the report of a loud party in the listed location. The complainant relayed to dispatch that participants from the party were throwing rocks at his house and at passing cars. The complainant requested officer not contact him. Upon arrival, I noted loud amplified music coming from the listed address. The music could be heard from a distance greater than 75 ft from the source. I also noted several rocks in the street. I did not locate any damage at that time. I contacted a party participant and had them retrieve a resident.

S1/Knox contacted me (in front of the house). She stated that she was one of the current residents. She stated that she was the one who was hosting the party (as she was moving out). She stated that she was not aware of any rock throwers at the gathering.

I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.

See Cad event 264012 for further.

No further action taken at this time.



Hi Machine! :D cl-) th-)

Finally, the elusive Police Report surfaces.

Those "FOAKS" over at "Franks" have been hiding it all along.

And to think they were all over my case because I went down to the Police Department and tried to obtain it - they kept saying it didn't exist! qt-)

Bad FOAKS! sp-))

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm
Posts: 56
This may be a little confusing but here goes.

I have to admit that I do understand how statements can be substantially coerced from a person. Also, I believe Amanda was interrogated somewhat roughly and she said things thinking that - maybe something like this could be true and I don't even remember it. With that said, I don't put a lot of credence in her PL based confession.

However, in that confession it looks like Amanda brought up the scream and the thumping before anyone else, where the thumping was confirmed by none other than HK. Where in the world would she get these details from other than her own really real memory? I think she very probably inserted these truths into her scenario, making her look guilty or at least involved.

In addition, I don't think I need a confession to think she is guilty.

Thanks for all the translations,
Swanny


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Coached and un-coached testimony; benefits of Public Relations and "lawyering up"

Regarding the Seattle Party and Noise, ticket where the Police documentation specifically noted seeing rocks on the roadway, and issued warning about throwing more rocks. (Thanks Tara for Report)

Amanda's thorough high priced handlers had her adroitly say she *did not see* any rocks thrown, (and then the real Public Relations explanation) that the fine was "like a parking ticket".

She continues gesturing and downplays this to the theatrical hilt by explaining in Italian how one gets a parking ticket,and what a non-event it is to get a Parking Ticket in USA.

And also the well thought out response that her name was on citation because she was only one sober at the party. Uh-Huh

Magnificent "spin" .
All those Seattle Talking Points and Public Relations Polishing are in full bloom

In Contrast...
Her un-coached college friend who also was at party, and may be unaware that witnesses are not allowed to lie as Amanda is under Italian System, stated in direct contradiction to Police Report......"there were no rocks thrown". Can you spell perjury ??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 65
She hosted a party where there was loud music and some drunken jerk guests- not even HER, as I read it- were throwing rocks? I'm surprised anyone defending her would even bother trying to deny such a thing. If this is supposed to have been the worse skeleton in her closet, then her father's description of her as otherwise just an regular college kid seems hard to argue with.

My eyebrow is raised that they're even allowed to mention something this irrelevant in a murder trial.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
I'm really not understanding the relevance of the "rock-throwing" stuff to the trial. Here, something like that would never in a million years be admitted as part of a murder trial. I understand that the evidentiary rules in Italy are different, and that evidence-admission standards are lower, but I still fail to see the relevance. I mean - you throw a party and people throw rocks? Everyone knows how college parties go - you invite some people, news of the party spreads through word of mouth, and soon people you've never met in your life show up --- maybe some who are irresponsible/dangerous rock-throwers. For this stuff to be admitted as part of a murder trial seems unbelievable to me. Unless there's some angle that I'm missing (which could well be the case -- I don't know this case inside-out like some people do). Maybe it has something to do with impeachment/demonstration of lying? Or something else tangentially related to the trial?

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
Lane99, I see you beat me to the punch. Most people who have been following this forum for a while know that I strongly suspect that AK was somehow involved in the murder, but gosh - that's not going to stop me from questioning a seemingly bizarre tactic employed by the prosecutor. I'm really having a hard time seeing the relevance there. (Unless, as I said, there's some tangential issue of which I am not aware.)

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
The 411 wrote:
FROM TRUTHFUL'S TRANSLATED TESTIMONY TRANSCRIPT (TTTT)

Amanda said:
"Well, I was worried because she[Meredith] wasn't answering. The fact that the door was
locked wouldn't have alarmed me if, say, she had answered, but the fact that
she didn't answer when we called her made us think: maybe she's in there and
she isn't well or something.

[The same voice: not Mignini] For goodness' sake, still on this circumstance.
A door is locked, locked, why should I think there is someone inside who isn't
answering me? I could just calmly think that nobody is there--

Also that. But we weren't sure. Sorry--

--and if she's not home, why should I be worried? Enough to ruin the door by
breaking it down? Why should I think that there is someone there who is not
answering me? The simplest answer is that she left, locked the door and left."
_________________________________________________________
YES!
Blood, strange things in the house, and Meredith's locked door. Why would you suddenly leap to the conclusion that
Meredith was BEHIND that locked door, when there was no response--unless you had psychic abilities or you knew she was there, unable to respond.

It was Amanda herself who noticed that Meredith had the habit of
locking her door, BUT ONLY when she was going to be away for a while. Away for a while...hmmmmmm..

Not flushing the toilet would be so atypical for Meredith, one might rightly think Meredith were unwell.
Then seeing blood here and there might cause a flatmate to further worry about Meredith, but
would the flatmate then assume that in her ill/injured state, wounded Meredith would isolate herself behind a LOCKED door, instead of calling for assistance????

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Why didn't Amanda FIRST explore the possibility that Meredith was taken to a hospital?
Why not call Meredith's friends before immediately thinking about the most TRAGIC, INCOMPREHENSIBLE, UNLIKELY scenario--MURDER.

Isn't that what most (innocent) people would think/do?
Even if Amanda thought Meredith were injured behind that door.. an injured person would NEVER lock the door behind themselves to delay any attempts at getting help.

It's like that old medical adage, "When you hear hoof beats, think HORSES, and not ZEBRAS."


Just so, 411...AK's behavior is consistent with a suspicion or knowledge that MK was behind that door and somehow severely incapacitated. If there was enough blood and strange occurrences in the house to suggest something so catastrophic, why wouldn't her reaction have been urgent and instantaneous? An innocent person wouldn't have needed to shower in that house that morning, but AK did, to provide an explanation for possible traces of her DNA in the house and in particular in the bathroom. So her need to have a shower there might come across as odd, but it was also necessary and therefore worth the risk of appearing odd. It was also necessary that she respond with a little more alarm to the scene at the house, which she finally did, after taking the necessary shower. So what seems like illogical behavior to the rest of us was actually, from AK's perspective, perfectly logical and necessary, under the circumstances. If she had not needed to come home and shower (not to mention clean up, although I'm not sure when this occurred), she would have likely chosen to stay away and let MK be discovered by someone else. She might have just gone out of town, as she said she wanted to. But her work at the house was not finished...

Also, why leave water soaking all night at RS' apartment when some towels would probably have cleaned it up. I'm sure people have towels and rags in Italy, just like we do here in the US.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm
Posts: 247
Location: Seattle. WA
stint7 wrote:
Thanks Mr Curt Knox...Verbatim quote:
Yes, but it’s one in which I think every young person, as they grow up, experimented in certain things, and it’s one in which she’s becoming an adult,” Curt Knox said. “Everybody has their own opinion, but I believe she came off as really who she is, which is just a regular college kid.”


What an insult to those of us who did go to college, actually studied, behaved maturely in social situations and limited our intimate adventures to those people we fell in love with. The world is full of intelligent, educated and responsible people. Unfortunately there are many others who lack both education and social grace; a strong showing of these people reside in the lower class neighborhoods of Seattle.

cl-) "Meet the FOAKers."

I challenge any one of those circus clowns to come forward and declare their education status.
I would like to know where they teach such crap.

It wasn't enough they make an ass out of themselves to the citizens of Seattle, a true embarrasment. Now, they are dragging the whole country down with them. It's a "no-brainer" their actions will severely backfire on them. Once Edda takes the stand all hell is going to break out and Amanda will be sunk. "Oh, but Amanda, if you had not called me honey I would not be in this position."

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
Truth Seeker wrote:
I'm really not understanding the relevance of the "rock-throwing" stuff to the trial. Here, something like that would never in a million years be admitted as part of a murder trial. I understand that the evidentiary rules in Italy are different, and that evidence-admission standards are lower, but I still fail to see the relevance. I mean - you throw a party and people throw rocks? Everyone knows how college parties go - you invite some people, news of the party spreads through word of mouth, and soon people you've never met in your life show up --- maybe some who are irresponsible/dangerous rock-throwers. For this stuff to be admitted as part of a murder trial seems unbelievable to me. Unless there's some angle that I'm missing (which could well be the case -- I don't know this case inside-out like some people do). Maybe it has something to do with impeachment/demonstration of lying? Or something else tangentially related to the trial?


I don't quite get the relevance either. A citation for disturbance of the peace is a very minor offense in most places in the United States. Now if there were evidence of it being a drunken orgy, leading to acts of violence, that would be a lot more relevant; and I have heard this suggested. Who knows? But I doubt it will be treated as a big deal by the jury, since it doesn't appear to be.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 83
Professor Snape wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Thanks Mr Curt Knox...Verbatim quote:
Yes, but it’s one in which I think every young person, as they grow up, experimented in certain things, and it’s one in which she’s becoming an adult,” Curt Knox said. “Everybody has their own opinion, but I believe she came off as really who she is, which is just a regular college kid.”


What an insult to those of us who did go to college, actually studied, behaved maturely in social situations and limited our intimate adventures to those people we fell in love with. The world is full of intelligent, educated and responsible people. Unfortunately there are many others who lack both education and social grace; a strong showing of these people reside in the lower class neighborhoods of Seattle.

cl-) "Meet the FOAKers."

I challenge any one of those circus clowns to come forward and declare their education status.
I would like to know where they teach such crap.

It wasn't enough they make an ass out of themselves to the citizens of Seattle, a true embarrasment. Now, they are dragging the whole country down with them. It's a "no-brainer" their actions will severely backfire on them. Once Edda takes the stand all hell is going to break out and Amanda will be sunk. "Oh, but Amanda, if you had not called me honey I would not be in this position."


American parents are very lenient. Well, it takes a lot of time to parent and sometimes you have to be the bad guy and tell your children when you think they are misbehaving; it's so much easier to let everything go. AK is the result of this kind of parenting; on the one hand given all the freedom of an adult, but treated like a child when the "experiment" goes awry.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
Professor Snape wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Thanks Mr Curt Knox...Verbatim quote:
Yes, but it’s one in which I think every young person, as they grow up, experimented in certain things, and it’s one in which she’s becoming an adult,” Curt Knox said. “Everybody has their own opinion, but I believe she came off as really who she is, which is just a regular college kid.”


What an insult to those of us who did go to college, actually studied, behaved maturely in social situations and limited our intimate adventures to those people we fell in love with. The world is full of intelligent, educated and responsible people. Unfortunately there are many others who lack both education and social grace; a strong showing of these people reside in the lower class neighborhoods of Seattle.

cl-) "Meet the FOAKers."

I challenge any one of those circus clowns to come forward and declare their education status.
I would like to know where they teach such crap.

It wasn't enough they make an ass out of themselves to the citizens of Seattle, a true embarrasment. Now, they are dragging the whole country down with them. It's a "no-brainer" their actions will severely backfire on them. Once Edda takes the stand all hell is going to break out and Amanda will be sunk. "Oh, but Amanda, if you had not called me honey I would not be in this position."


Well, as someone who sometimes feels like I was born in the "wrong era" (I was born too late to be a part of the free-love flower-child movement :lol: ), I do have to take a bit of exception to some of the characterizations of Amanda's pre-murder life and behavior. I mean, there's certainly nothing wrong with two adults having sex when they're not in love, so long as they're both consenting and both being safe about it. (And maybe AK wasn't being safe - I don't know.) And not everyone is "good" at social graces - especially people in their 20s who are basically just learning about the world and about themselves and how they fit into it.

I actually don't see Amanda's pre-murder behavior as much of an issue. It's her "during-murder" and "after-murder" behavior that I have a huge problem with. ;)

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:37 am 
Offline
Links & Gallery Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am
Posts: 3599
Truth Seeker wrote:
I'm really not understanding the relevance of the "rock-throwing" stuff to the trial.


:idea: Maybe, because there was a large rock that had apparently been used to break a window from inside Filomena's room, rock-throwing "exercises" are somehow relevant to the case? nw-) Who knows? Looks like Amanda & Friends are not only seasoned rock climbers but also skilled rock throwers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
guermantes wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
I'm really not understanding the relevance of the "rock-throwing" stuff to the trial.


:idea: Maybe, because there was a large rock that had apparently been used to break a window from inside Filomena's room, rock-throwing "exercises" are somehow relevant to the case? nw-)


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Maybe they'll have her demonstrate her rock-throwing skills in the courtroom for all to see.
sh-))

:lol:

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
mrsdarcy wrote:
But her work at the house was not finished....


interesting scenario. it's one that may have been called the "interrupted-cleanup".

a very ironic event in all this is the fact the Postal Police arrival occurred while they were there.
Totally unplanned, unexpected, what are the odd's of that happening?

I'm confused or late to the show again.... :?

Postal Police arrive unexpectedly at 12:35.

Is there proof of AK or RS telling anyone about the situation, at the cottage, before the Postal Police arrive?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
Jfk - the Postal Police arrived because Meredith's cellphones had been discovered in a garden and they were investigating a bomb threat to which they thought the cellphones might have been related.

EDIT: And it was conclusively proven that the bomb threat was unrelated to the case.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 65
Truth Seeker wrote:
Lane99, I see you beat me to the punch. Most people who have been following this forum for a while know that I strongly suspect that AK was somehow involved in the murder, but gosh - that's not going to stop me from questioning a seemingly bizarre tactic employed by the prosecutor. I'm really having a hard time seeing the relevance there. (Unless, as I said, there's some tangential issue of which I am not aware.)


Sorry about that, Truth Seeker ;-) For myself, I can say I completely disagree with her supporters who say there is no reason at all to suspect her. But, at the same time, I'm willing to keep an open mind, particularly in case that is primarily circumstantial, and that has no easily identified motive (at least regards Amanda and Raf), and for which there an alternative suspect and scenario under which the crime- on the surface at least- would seem to be far less the exceedingly rare abberation it would be if it's actually true that all three of them were in it together.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Truth Seeker wrote:
Jfk - the Postal Police arrived because Meredith's cellphones had been discovered in a garden and they were investigating a bomb threat to which they thought the cellphones might have been related.

EDIT: And it was conclusively proven that the bomb threat was unrelated to the case.


thats not my question at all...

the point was, did the arrival of the Postal Police, press them to start the cover up, by making phone calls?

had the Postal not shown up maybe they weren't done cleaning up.

Maybe they weren't going to tell anyone for hours, but their cleanup was interrupted by the Postal police.

In other words, if they only started calling after the Postal arrived,12:35.... it would appear suspicious.

If they had been calling people openly, discussing the condition of the cottage, bloody bathroom etc..before the Postal Police arrived, it would appear to me, they were more credible. more normal.

make sense?

Were any phone calls made by RS or AK, about the condition of the cottage, before 12:35 Nov 2?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:52 am 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
mrsdarcy wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
I'm really not understanding the relevance of the "rock-throwing" stuff to the trial. Here, something like that would never in a million years be admitted as part of a murder trial. I understand that the evidentiary rules in Italy are different, and that evidence-admission standards are lower, but I still fail to see the relevance. I mean - you throw a party and people throw rocks? Everyone knows how college parties go - you invite some people, news of the party spreads through word of mouth, and soon people you've never met in your life show up --- maybe some who are irresponsible/dangerous rock-throwers. For this stuff to be admitted as part of a murder trial seems unbelievable to me. Unless there's some angle that I'm missing (which could well be the case -- I don't know this case inside-out like some people do). Maybe it has something to do with impeachment/demonstration of lying? Or something else tangentially related to the trial?


I don't quite get the relevance either. A citation for disturbance of the peace is a very minor offense in most places in the United States. Now if there were evidence of it being a drunken orgy, leading to acts of violence, that would be a lot more relevant; and I have heard this suggested. Who knows? But I doubt it will be treated as a big deal by the jury, since it doesn't appear to be.


I suspect it's not the noise disturbance but the rock throwing. Don't you think that throwing rocks at cars- or passers-by or both can have disastrous consequences? If you hit someone, they can get killed or lose control of their car and also kill someone else. Throwing rocks at people is an idiotic and very dangerous activity

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
This is the best I could find on the phone calls, before the Postal Police arrive.
So they were either done cleaning up (if your on that side)...or they weren't hiding the fact there was blood in the bathroom etc.. giving them some credibility, in beng open about the condition of the cottage before the Postal police show up.

<snip>
In the 12:08 call, Amanda told Filomena she would try Meredith’s phones and then call her back. In the email, Amanda claims that she called Filomena back three quarters of an hour later – after Raffaele’s finished calling the police at 12:55. But cellphone records show that Amanda never called Filomena back at all. On the other hand, Filomena DOES call Amanda back – at 12:12 and 12:20. It’s not clear whether Filomena receives an answer to these calls, or simply leaves a message – certainly, Amanda’s email makes no mention of having received these calls. Then Filomena tries a third time, at 12:34, which is when Amanda tells her that Filomena’s own room has been broken into.

http://www.zimbio.com/Raffaele+Sollecit ... line+Alibi


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am
Posts: 101
Location: Hidden Hills, CA
mrsdarcy wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
I'm really not understanding the relevance of the "rock-throwing" stuff to the trial. Here, something like that would never in a million years be admitted as part of a murder trial. I understand that the evidentiary rules in Italy are different, and that evidence-admission standards are lower, but I still fail to see the relevance. I mean - you throw a party and people throw rocks? Everyone knows how college parties go - you invite some people, news of the party spreads through word of mouth, and soon people you've never met in your life show up --- maybe some who are irresponsible/dangerous rock-throwers. For this stuff to be admitted as part of a murder trial seems unbelievable to me. Unless there's some angle that I'm missing (which could well be the case -- I don't know this case inside-out like some people do). Maybe it has something to do with impeachment/demonstration of lying? Or something else tangentially related to the trial?


I don't quite get the relevance either. A citation for disturbance of the peace is a very minor offense in most places in the United States. Now if there were evidence of it being a drunken orgy, leading to acts of violence, that would be a lot more relevant; and I have heard this suggested. Who knows? But I doubt it will be treated as a big deal by the jury, since it doesn't appear to be.



Mignini is using the noise disturbance as a way to impeach Knox on the witness stand. Mainly to counter her defense's possible claim that she was a Dean's List UW student, who was never got in trouble before. They just want to show her, she is capable in getting out of control and counter her defense team's own character witnesses, like Andrew Seliber's testimony.


I don't know where she lived near U-Dub, but most of time, those around, University Ave, 15 Ave NE, to Ravenna Park and around Fraternity Row deal with the University of Washington Police, who also patrol around Mountlake Ave and near U-Village shopping mall, and of course on the U-Dub Campus and the U-Dub Medical Center. (I lived on 12th Ave NE on the west side of "the Ave", and was surprise how much crime was around my duplex, besides the occasional shooting, I think the convicted hacker Kevin Mitnick lived a blocked away from at one time near the University Height Elementary school now Community Center and Farmer's market on Saturday, or something like that)

Noise disturbances around U-Dub especially during the weekend, you can predict are incredibly common. I know from my College experience in Portland, OR, the cops give you a one warning on noise, (Basically turn down the music, and not have your drunk friends stop screaming their rugby games best tackles in front of the house) then they shut you down afterward, if they are called again, or issue you a citation. It is no big deal.

The worst behavior I have seen from parties at College is when mainly hard alcohol is served, like Upside down Margaritas theme parties or Kamikaze theme parties, that is when the ambulances start arriving for alcohol poisoning victims, and the cops may throw their weight around, and issue some serious citations for serving alcohol to minors etc, or start arresting people. Also more hard alcohol, the rise of supreme idiotic behavior, like throwing rocks, breaking windows, fights, etc.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am
Posts: 207
Michael wrote:


Just to add about Curt, despite the fact that I dissagree with many of the things he has said, I do actually quite respect him and hold no small degree of sympathy for him. This is because I detect that he holds some degree of honour, his sympathy for Meredith and her family is genuine and he does cut a forlorn figure. If, the Knox Camp does have anything that could be referred to as a 'star', it's Curt Knox. I think they should stick with him and put away their Paul Ciolinos, Anne Bremners, Doug Prestons and especially, their Chris Mellas's (and his little crowd).



Yeah that's my impression too. I'm not sure he actually believes she's innocent (his unwillingness to have a translator in court is telling ) but can't bring himself to cut her loose. I would love to know what Mrs Knox thinks about him putting her and their daughters' futures on the line like this; she must have great faith in his judgement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
jfk1191 wrote:
This is the best I could find on the phone calls, before the Postal Police arrive.
So they were either done cleaning up (if your on that side)...or they weren't hiding the fact there was blood in the bathroom etc.. giving them some credibility, in beng open about the condition of the cottage before the Postal police show up.


That's a copy and paste of this post from TJMK, which in turn was based on a series of posts I'd made over on Candace Dempsey's blog. I spent a couple of days over the Easter break looking at the cellphone records and comparing them with Amanda's email, and seeing how they fit together, or not, as the case may be.

All of that analysis seems particularly relevant at this stage of the trial, at a point when the prosecution has been asking questions along the same lines that I raised in those posts.

Let's have another look at how Amanda described the moments leading up to the decision to call the cops. This excerpt from the email comes from just after she's mistakenly thought that Rudy's turds had disappeared from the toilet:

Amanda Knox in her email wrote:
i ran outside and down to our neighbors door. the lights were out but i banged ont he door anyway. i wanted to ask them if they had heard anything the night before, but no one was home. i ran back into the house. in the living room raffael told me he wanted to see if he could break down merediths door. he tried, and cracked the door, but we couldnt open it. it was then that we decidedto call the cops.


Now here's how the cellphone records account for those same few minutes:

12:34:56 Amanda receives third phonecall from Filomena (48 seconds)
12:35:08 Raffaele puts more credit on his phone (Call duration 2 minutes 15 seconds)
12:38:17 Raffaele receives SMS confirmation from Vodaphone that his credit has been updated (1 second)
12:40:03 Raffaele receives a phone call from his dad (1 minute and 7 seconds)
12:47:23 Amanda calls her mother in Seattle (1 minute 28 seconds)
12:50:34 Raffaele calls his sister in the carabinieri (39 seconds)
12:51:40 Raffaele calls 112 (2 minutes 49 seconds)
12:54:39 Raffaele calls 112 again (57 seconds)

1. The first thing to observe is that Amanda's email is not accurate. It makes no mention of any phone calls at all, until Raffaele's call to his sister.
2. During those fifteen minutes before Raffaele called Vanessa, one or other of the pair was on the phone for nearly six minutes (although this includes a period of 40 seconds when they were both on the phone at the same time - Amanda receiving Filomena's call, and Raffaele taking the opportunity to top up his credit.)
3. We've heard Edda Mellas's account of the 1247 call - that she told Amanda to hang up and call the police. And we can see that this fits exactly with what happened next - Raffaele immediately called his sister and then dialed 112 (twice). And we can compare that with Amanda's account, in which the decision to call the police followed directly from Raffaele's failed attempt to break down the door. This version makes a logical sense on its own - until we look at the phone records and realize that the cellphone records don't square with the email.

Let's take a more detailed look at how Amanda describes the 112 call.

Here's how Amanda described those events in her email:

Amanda Knox in her email wrote:
he first called his sister for advice and then called the carbanieri. i then called filomna who said she would be on her way home immediately.


Again, that's nice and sequential on its own terms. FIRST Raffaele called Vanessa and THEN Raffaele called 112 and THEN Amanda called Filomena.

But actually there was no call from Amanda to Filomena, and the last phone call from Filomena had ended fifteen minutes BEFORE Raffaele's call to Vanessa.

And now here's how Amanda described the same events from the witness stand (thanks to Thoughtful's excellent transcript):

Amanda Knox in court wrote:
We were in the house. I went out, to see if the boys downstairs were home. Everything was dark, I knocked but no one opened, so they weren't home. So, when I went back upstairs, I said look, Raffaele, who should we call, because I don't know how to call the police? I didn't even know the difference between police and carabinieri because to me they were all the same, so he said, ah, let's call my sister, who I think was a carabiniere or worked for the carabinieri, I'm not sure, and she told him, she advised him, I didn't listen to their phone call, but I think I was talking to Filomena on the phone at the same time, because when I saw the big mess in her room, but everything else seemed okay, nothing seemed to be taken, also the fact that her computer was there, on the table, I said to her, I don't know what to think, but come home, because I saw these things. Then we went out of the house, because I was taken by this...I don't know, I felt really strange. The situation was too strange, I didn't know what to think. So we went out of the house, also to look from outside at that window, and while we were outside, two people came up to us and said "Ciao, we're the police".


We can observe first of all that the attempt to kick down the door - which seems quite dramatic in the email - no longer forms part of this narrative, which describes a much more calm and considered scene.

We can also observe that she now claims that she didn't listen to Raffaele's call to Vanessa because she was on the phone to Filomena (but allows some wiggle room by qualifying it with "I think"). In this call, she reports herself as saying, "I don't know what to think, but come home, because I saw these things." ("These things" being a big mess in Filomena's room, but Filomena's computer being safely on the table.)

But the phone records show that this phone call from Filomena took place much earlier, when Raffaele was topping up his phone credit. (And Filomena's own account, and police photographs, show that Filomena's computer was actually on the floor with glass fragments on top of it.)

And the phone records also contradict what Amanda said on the witness stand, while confirming what she originally suggested in the email - namely that the phone calls to Vanessa and then 112 were sequential, and that Amanda herself was present at those calls. (Also, we can hear her in the background of the second call, so there's not much argument to be had about that one.)

Except that the phone records add a prequel to that sequence - namely, Amanda's call to her mother at 12:47:23. And that phone call would in fact appear to the real trigger for their decision to call the police.

And that's what makes Amanda's call to Edda Mellas extremely interesting in determining what really happened.

Here's how Edda Mellas, speaking on the 20/20 program, described that phone call that she received from Amanda in the early hours of the morning:

Edda Mellas wrote:
She goes, "I'm back at my house, and I want you ... first I know I'm okay." And I said, "Okay, you know, what's goin' on?" And she said, "Well, I was at Rafael's last night...and I've come home now and I think somebody's been in my house." ...And she told me, "We can't find Meredith. We can't get a hold of Meredith. And her room is locked."

And I said, "Hang up and call the police."


This is the call that Amanda completely forgot that she made.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:15 am
Posts: 33
Location: London
MikeMCSG wrote:
Yeah that's my impression too. I'm not sure he actually believes she's innocent (his unwillingness to have a translator in court is telling ) but can't bring himself to cut her loose. I would love to know what Mrs Knox thinks about him putting her and their daughters' futures on the line like this; she must have great faith in his judgement.


Curt is certainly a loyal parent to Amanda for being in the courtroom for her and not cutting her loose in this situation. However, I don't think his support should depend on Amanda's innocence or on his belief in her innocence, I would respect him even more if I thought he had his doubts, but was still in the courtroom for Amanda and made no comments to the media.

Is he a loyal and responsible parent to his younger children? As the things are now, he has gambled away all their future school fees.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:57 pm
Posts: 26
Location: spain
nicki wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
I'm really not understanding the relevance of the "rock-throwing" stuff to the trial. Here, something like that would never in a million years be admitted as part of a murder trial. I understand that the evidentiary rules in Italy are different, and that evidence-admission standards are lower, but I still fail to see the relevance. I mean - you throw a party and people throw rocks? Everyone knows how college parties go - you invite some people, news of the party spreads through word of mouth, and soon people you've never met in your life show up --- maybe some who are irresponsible/dangerous rock-throwers. For this stuff to be admitted as part of a murder trial seems unbelievable to me. Unless there's some angle that I'm missing (which could well be the case -- I don't know this case inside-out like some people do). Maybe it has something to do with impeachment/demonstration of lying? Or something else tangentially related to the trial?


I don't quite get the relevance either. A citation for disturbance of the peace is a very minor offense in most places in the United States. Now if there were evidence of it being a drunken orgy, leading to acts of violence, that would be a lot more relevant; and I have heard this suggested. Who knows? But I doubt it will be treated as a big deal by the jury, since it doesn't appear to be.


I suspect it's not the noise disturbance but the rock throwing. Don't you think that throwing rocks at cars- or passers-by or both can have disastrous consequences? If you hit someone, they can get killed or lose control of their car and also kill someone else. Throwing rocks at people is an idiotic and very dangerous activity


I agree that it seems a minor offense to bring up as evidence. What exactly IS the evidence? Maybe her recent past behaviour? The type of people she associated with? Maybe that she doesn't think of this as something important had happened that could have led to people getting hurt? As if..if she didn't know about the rock throwing, then she wasn't responsible? Even though it WAS her party ( in the house she lived in). I believe it shows she was not a responsible (acting) person. She doesn't show any concern by the policeman´s questions about stones being thrown. Maybe if she had, she would have only gotten a verbal warning from the police and not a citation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Swanny wrote:
This may be a little confusing but here goes.

I have to admit that I do understand how statements can be substantially coerced from a person. Also, I believe Amanda was interrogated somewhat roughly and she said things thinking that - maybe something like this could be true and I don't even remember it. With that said, I don't put a lot of credence in her PL based confession.

However, in that confession it looks like Amanda brought up the scream and the thumping before anyone else, where the thumping was confirmed by none other than HK. Where in the world would she get these details from other than her own really real memory? I think she very probably inserted these truths into her scenario, making her look guilty or at least involved.

In addition, I don't think I need a confession to think she is guilty.

Thanks for all the translations,
Swanny


Swanny,

I think you are right about the disallowed statements.

I, like many, have always associated them with the false allegation against Patrick, but that's not the problem her defense has with them.

On the face of it, allowing those statements to be heard in court would allow Amanda to demonstrate the pressures exerted on her which she claims resulted in her blaming Patrick.

Those statements could be used as a defense against both the prosecutions and Patrick's slander charges. Frank was really surprised when the prosecution also layed a slander charge against Amanda. He didn't think that was normal in the situation and now I've come to believe he's right on that assertion.

BUT the reason the prosecution wants those statements to be heard by the court has absolutely nothing to do with Patrick at all.

The reason the defense still doesn't want them allowed demonstrates they are much more worried about other things they may contain than they are about either of the two slander charges.

We have "the scream" and "thumps", what else does Amanda say to demonstrate her presence at the cottage when she was interrogated by the police in the early hours of Nov 6th?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm
Posts: 139
Next Friday's hearing gives us a chance to hear three witnesses, (La Nazione)

Edda Mellas

Francesco Sollecito

Dottor Francesco Introna, new defense consultant.

Knox's mom will be questioned on the phone calls from AK and their bugged conversations in the jail. Sollecito's dad will be questioned about his family's alledged attempts to pervert the course of justice, no idea what the new defense consultant is going to testify about.


Top
 Profile  
 
 [ 2985 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report: English Translation     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher 


24,367,249 Views Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group